Sometimes you've got to be careful what you wish for. In the film industry the wishful thing is "buzz." My mind is recalled to the early Christian notion that those things which you can see will pass away while those things that are invisible are eternal. In the case of indie film, once you're out there, there is no going back. For that reason we were discouraged from having our film reviewed by major news outlets such as The New York Times because, although a positive review from the Times may help, a negative review will kill the film dead in its tracks. So, the idea is to put a review like that off as long as possible, while building a strong grassroots appreciation for the film. Due to forces outside our control, like premiering at a major film festival, we are becoming evermore visible. What do we do now? There isn't really anyone to tell you this stuff. We've decided to run with it.
Just as predicted, there has been the good and the bad. The reviews are rolling in and, for the most part, have been positive. Still, those few bad reviews really stick in my craw. I don't mind so much when they are right about the problems the film has. There are plenty of valid criticisms. I have a few myself. For instance, there are certain things that aren't included in the film that I wish were but, for one reason or another, were impossible to include. I know that we couldn't have included those things, so I let it go, but the critics have no way of knowing our process, so I don't fault them when they can't let it go. I'm also happy to agree to disagree with a critic on certain points. And then, of course, some things are just a matter of personal preference or taste. All of that is fine. But there are two types of reviews that I cannot abide.
The first thing that drives me crazy is when a critic is reviewing your film, based not on what they are watching, but on the film they were expecting to see. This happens all the time, of course, but it was a particular problem with Cleanflix because the topic had been oft-reported on by the entertainment news community. They all thought that they knew what the film was going to be when they walked into the theater. The thoughtful ones were happy to be surprised. Many found that their expectations had been exceeded. The rest were upset that their false expectations hadn't been met. And it is not as though we had tricked them with marketing--we didn't even have a trailer! They just weren't willing to review the film on its own terms. Long gone are the days of Pauline Kael. Annonying. That said, this complaint is nothing compared to my major complaint.
The second thing that drives me crazy, and I mean to the point of distraction, is when a critic chides us for something that they missed. You know, like, they say that our film is missing something that it is clearly not. Did they go to the bathroom during that scene? Were they digging around in their popcorn? Maybe they were busy tweeting that our film was a let-down. I don't know. What I do know is that whatever it was that distracted them, caused them to miss some vital piece of information that I was later blamed for.The problem is that this approach is key to film criticism these days. Critics see a film once and write their review. That's just the way it worst. For that reason, it is difficult to get after them too much. I would be hard pressed to watch a film once--live--and then be expected to have total recall a day or two or seven later when writing a review. Of course they are going to miss things. Of course they are going to get a few things wrong. It is expected and totally reasonable. The problem is that many of these reviewers aren't in touch with themselves enough to know when they are fuzzy on the facts. In fact, often the opposite is true. They approach your film cock-sure, dragging you over the coals for things they claim the film is lacking, but in actuality is not. This isn't as much of an issue with bigger films, because enough people have seen and reviewed such a movie to expose the reviewer as the one who is out of the loop. But with a film like ours, an indie film being seen for the first time at a festival, the critic is among the first to review the movie and, if they mess up badly enough, they may ensure that nobody else gets the chance to review the movie in the future.
Photo from TIFF Cleanflix premiere in Life.I am loathe to report that the majority of our negative reviews had at least one, if not several, instances of the reviewer claiming that we had missed opportunities that we hadn't. I cannot began to communicate to you my level of frustration that is pent up when reading such reviews. How is one supposed to react in a situation like that? In normal life (especially in this online culture we're living in) I would write back and verbally rip this guy to shreds. I can't do that as a filmmaker. I literally had to talk myself out of writing a scathing letter to a bumbling critic for an entire hour on one such occasion. In the end I was glad I didn't because to do so would only have been worse for my film.
Look at the flack Bruce Willis took for defending Live Free or Die Hard to talk-backers on the AICN boards. People were surprised he would stoop to that level. Well, what would you do if a bunch of people you didn't know were trashing something you cared enough about to dedicate more than a year of your life making and promoting? I'm not surprised in the least that Bruce wanted to defend his flick. The reality is, you just can't do it. Learning to deal with criticism is just part of being a film professional. Filmmaker Richard Dutcher, who actually appears in Cleanflix, gave me some good advice. He said to read the bad reviews once. Just once. Really listen to the critic and see if there is anything to learn. Then, throw it away. Read the good reviews a hundred times. That helped and has stuck with me.
And, of course, there is a positive side to this whole thing. The best part is that, based on the acclaim of Cleanflix, I'm going to get to keep making movies. Also, it is just fun knowing that people you like and respect are talking about you and your film. Just being online the last couple days and seeing Peter Sciretta tweeting about our film with guys like Jason Reitman and Frank Marshall has given me goosebumps. Malcolm Ingram of Small Town Gay Bar and SModcast fame was at our final screening. Danny Boyle almost walked into the screening, but it turns out he was at the wrong theater. Bummer. But there were many appreciative industry elite and there was a great press turnout as well. Our publicist even said that he spotted Elvis Mitchell at one of our screenings. No word from him yet, but Elvis, if you're out there, I'm a big fan of The Treatment. Call me.
One little highlight that you probably wouldn't expect to be one is that I sat and chatted with Peter from /Film and Alex from First Showing after a screening. I'm something of a film geek and I actually get a bigger kick out of knowing that /Film or Ain't It Cool has reviewed my film than even Variety or the Hollywood Reporter (even though we had a great interview with THR). And not only that, but they liked it. What a relief. I have promised to send a copy of Cleanflix to the Film Junk and Filmspotting podcasts, and I'm grateful that I have the excuse of waiting until our next film festival before I send it because I'm kinda nervous to hear what Adam and Matty, or worse, Greg, Sean, and Jay think of the movie I spent two years making. I don't know what I'll do when Roger Ebert finally reviews it.I know that this probably sounds weird, a filmmaker excited to meet a blogger, and I know that it is usually the other way around, but when you are just starting out, you are a dyed in the wool geek such as myself, and you have been reading these guys forever...well, there is no denying that the whole experience is just thrilling. So, in the end, you take the good and the bad and hope that the buzz you've worked so hard to build doesn't turn out to be a buzz-kill.
