JoBlo
09-12-2002, 03:33 PM
According to this story in the TORONTO STAR, film critic Roger Ebert and a few other high-fullooting (sp?) critics had a few choice words about the way that they were treated at this year's Toronto Film Festival. It sounds like the writer himself's got it "in" for Ebert, in my opinion, but let me know what you all think. Read the whole story here (http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1026145120406), or check it out below.
"U.S. newspaper/TV movie critic Roger Ebert fired back yesterday, claiming in a column in the National Post that he was merely "aggressive" in his pursuit of a fast-breaking story, rather than rude, obnoxious and loud while trying to force his way into a film festival press screening.
Ebert was responding to Toronto journalists, including The Star's Martin Knelman, who questioned his conduct in print.
The screening, of Todd Haynes' new film Far From Heaven, was packed, even though the festival had set aside two cinemas to accommodate the crowd. As often happens with movies that are alight with that all-important buzz, there were more people at the screening that seats. Anyone who has ever covered a film festival for even half a day knows that this can happen. There are fire regulations concerning having too many people in the theatre, after all.
Ebert is now claiming he did not shout. Funny, but I was some 20-odd feet away from him, and, from where I was standing, it sure sounded like shouting. Worse still, he and a handful of other American critics (I know this because Ebert was listing the names of the highfalutin publications they all wrote for) had decided they were way too A-list to stand for this. Simply put, they were attempting to jump the line. Many other critics had lined up earlier, and many of us weren't going to make it in either. His embarrassing arrogance got the best of me. Fatigued after a few too many movies, I cringed at his star fit, yelling, "Go back to America!"
Ebert now argues there are fundamental flaws with the press/industry screenings at the festival. He may be right, but the way to handle that is to talk to Piers Handling about it, or write about it, as Ebert has done since his meltdown.
Don't raise your voice at overworked, underpaid fest employees. Film critics are human — though Ebert may well prove me wrong on this point — and as such, we should be polite to people who are simply doing their job and attempting to uphold the fest's first-come policy. Ebert owes those fest workers an apology for attempting to use his star-critic status to bypass protocol.
Despite referring to a volunteer as "hard working," Ebert's disdain for the fest and the locals becomes clear in his response, in which he suggests we simple-minded Canuck journalists "miss the point." He states that he still managed to see Far From Heaven at 10 p.m. that night and file a story on it by the following morning. According to him, Roger "Scoop" Ebert used his wicked investigative journalistic skills to see the movie and land some sort of "exclusive."
Another way of looking at it is that hardworking staff at this highly efficient event lined up another screening of Far From Heaven to accommodate Ebert and various other critics (myself among them).
Ebert has yet to praise the festival for its fast work under conditions that are obviously stressful for all involved, not just critics. Instead, he languishes in a self-aggrandizing story about his über-scribe status. (Gosh, he's Clark Kent and Superman!)
It is an irony befitting a Michael Moore film that the screening being lined up for was of Far From Heaven, a remake of Douglas Sirk's classic melodrama All That Heaven Allows. In his films, Sirk often commented on the way race, sexuality and money form a hierarchy of privilege in American society, a system that benefits an elite few at the expense of far, far too many.
Sirk clearly believed in the democratic value of equality for all above virtually anything else. That vital message remains intact in Haynes' artful remake.
Indeed, it does appear someone has missed the point."
[This message has been edited by JoBlo (edited 09-12-2002).]
"U.S. newspaper/TV movie critic Roger Ebert fired back yesterday, claiming in a column in the National Post that he was merely "aggressive" in his pursuit of a fast-breaking story, rather than rude, obnoxious and loud while trying to force his way into a film festival press screening.
Ebert was responding to Toronto journalists, including The Star's Martin Knelman, who questioned his conduct in print.
The screening, of Todd Haynes' new film Far From Heaven, was packed, even though the festival had set aside two cinemas to accommodate the crowd. As often happens with movies that are alight with that all-important buzz, there were more people at the screening that seats. Anyone who has ever covered a film festival for even half a day knows that this can happen. There are fire regulations concerning having too many people in the theatre, after all.
Ebert is now claiming he did not shout. Funny, but I was some 20-odd feet away from him, and, from where I was standing, it sure sounded like shouting. Worse still, he and a handful of other American critics (I know this because Ebert was listing the names of the highfalutin publications they all wrote for) had decided they were way too A-list to stand for this. Simply put, they were attempting to jump the line. Many other critics had lined up earlier, and many of us weren't going to make it in either. His embarrassing arrogance got the best of me. Fatigued after a few too many movies, I cringed at his star fit, yelling, "Go back to America!"
Ebert now argues there are fundamental flaws with the press/industry screenings at the festival. He may be right, but the way to handle that is to talk to Piers Handling about it, or write about it, as Ebert has done since his meltdown.
Don't raise your voice at overworked, underpaid fest employees. Film critics are human — though Ebert may well prove me wrong on this point — and as such, we should be polite to people who are simply doing their job and attempting to uphold the fest's first-come policy. Ebert owes those fest workers an apology for attempting to use his star-critic status to bypass protocol.
Despite referring to a volunteer as "hard working," Ebert's disdain for the fest and the locals becomes clear in his response, in which he suggests we simple-minded Canuck journalists "miss the point." He states that he still managed to see Far From Heaven at 10 p.m. that night and file a story on it by the following morning. According to him, Roger "Scoop" Ebert used his wicked investigative journalistic skills to see the movie and land some sort of "exclusive."
Another way of looking at it is that hardworking staff at this highly efficient event lined up another screening of Far From Heaven to accommodate Ebert and various other critics (myself among them).
Ebert has yet to praise the festival for its fast work under conditions that are obviously stressful for all involved, not just critics. Instead, he languishes in a self-aggrandizing story about his über-scribe status. (Gosh, he's Clark Kent and Superman!)
It is an irony befitting a Michael Moore film that the screening being lined up for was of Far From Heaven, a remake of Douglas Sirk's classic melodrama All That Heaven Allows. In his films, Sirk often commented on the way race, sexuality and money form a hierarchy of privilege in American society, a system that benefits an elite few at the expense of far, far too many.
Sirk clearly believed in the democratic value of equality for all above virtually anything else. That vital message remains intact in Haynes' artful remake.
Indeed, it does appear someone has missed the point."
[This message has been edited by JoBlo (edited 09-12-2002).]