- BIG NEWS:
- Magazines
- |
- NBC
- |
- ABC
- |
- Brian Williams
- |
 |
||
As I write this, I realize I am about to do something that, for the most part, is never done. I am going to criticize a critic. Filmmakers are never supposed to respond to a critic about their work. It's an unspoken rule of engagement. But in this case, I feel compelled.
I am going to criticize Alessandra Stanley, the TV critic for the New York Times. I am not going to criticize her on the basis of what she may not like about my recent film essay Poliwood, but I am going to take her to task for her blatant inaccuracies. For her inability to view the piece for what it was.
It may be true that I am overly sensitive to her critical writings ever since reading a review she wrote some time ago about a Walter Cronkite documentary that was part of PBS's American Masters series. I had nothing to do with that project other than to see it and to read her review, which began, "There will never be an anchorman like Walter Cronkite. And thank heaven for that." It was a shocking opening line -- an assessment that I would certainly disagree with -- but nevertheless, she is allowed to express her own opinion. However, the line that really caught my ire for its blatant inaccuracy was what she said about Cronkite informing the nation about the assassination of President John Kennedy: "He informed and consoled the nation with stoic grace. But it's hard to imagine that anyone in that chair at that moment, wouldn't have been just as memorable, simply because he was there."
Anyone in that chair! Anyone? The impression you get from Ms. Stanley is that there was only one network and one person reporting this event back then. Is she suggesting that Walter Cronkite was the only reporter informing us about this assassination? The reality is there were three networks and they were all reporting the event, and Walter Cronkite is the only one we remember. Why do we remember Cronkite as he took off his glasses on that tragic day and reported that the young president had just been assassinated? According to Ms. Stanley, it had nothing to do with Cronkite's unique ability as a newsman or his special ability to connect with an audience. It was because he was the only one there, reporting. To defend her thesis she had to carefully eliminate two networks from history -- and two chairs. Yet this is what Ms. Stanley does: she alters reality to fit her thesis. It is blatantly inaccurate and deceitful. It is a bogus sentence, illogical, and fraudulent. That is not valid criticism, and should have no place in such a respected paper as the New York Times. But it was written, and it was printed.
Now I come back to Poliwood.
Ms. Stanley states, "In politics, the only thing worse than no access, is too much access." She goes on to say, "At its core the film is a screed about everything that was wrong with politics and media during the 2004 election, carried over and misapplied to the 2008 campaign."
For the record, the film essay has nothing to do with the 2008 campaign. That's why there is no footage of the candidates leading up to the conventions, and no footage of them campaigning on the road, leading up to the election. There is also no footage of the candidates stating political positions. No footage of strategy sessions. No discussions with the political operatives of either side. No footage of the fears or anxieties, the second-guessing, and the tiresome campaign trail. I only cover the two conventions and the inauguration merely as the backdrop for the intersection of politics, media, and entertainment as the cameras followed the journey of the Creative Coalition through these events.
It was not a case of too much access, as Ms. Stanley suggests. I had no access to either campaign. I never asked for, nor was refused any such request for the one simple reason: I wasn't filming a campaign. It was not the point of the piece. I don't wish to cherry-pick a critical line of hers from within her overall review, but it is the opening sentence.
At another point, Ms. Stanley goes on to state that my observations about the media were incorrect because the media did not determine the outcome of the 2008 election. Like her previous comment, the fact that Obama won was not the point of the piece. That's for other filmmakers to make. But, Poliwood does address the importance of telegenic (TV friendly) political figures, of which Obama is one of them. Is Ms. Stanley suggesting that Obama's attractive appearance, his ability as a great speaker, his youth and vibrancy, and his story of rising from poverty as shown on television had absolutely no effect on him becoming President of United States? The film is much more of a sociological look at the cause and effects of television, the good and the bad and the sometimes ugly as it applies to the political dialogue. Not the 2008 election. But Ms. Stanley writes, "Poliwood gets on the bus with a group of politically minded movie stars, and forgets to get off and on to the campaign." We didn't forget. It was not the point of the film essay. There can only be two reasons for her fraudulent statement: one is that her arrogance is only exceeded by her ignorance, or two, since she was also reviewing By The People, a documentary that did follow the campaign, she needed to blend the two pieces to fit her own critical agenda.
Ms. Stanley can be as critical as she wants of Poliwood, but I find it very disconcerting to be criticized for what wasn't presented so she can fuel her own false premises.
To reiterate, criticism is a part of a filmmaker's journey. Any time you attempt to tackle a subject that is complicated, one is open to criticism. It comes with the territory. A WARNING: to any thin-skinned filmmaker, get out of this line of work quickly or you'll die a hemophiliac. But when one's work is used as fodder for a critic such as Ms. Stanley, then I feel I must speak up... and throw caution to the wind. I know the old adage, "Never get into a battle with someone who orders ink by the gallon," but I can't help myself.
The New York Times is known throughout the world as one of the leading newspapers in this country. It has excellent film criticism and book reviews. And a very strong op-ed page. Where Ms. Stanley fits into this strong lineup is questionable at best.
As a filmmaker, all you can expect is for your work to be examined for what it is. I keep thinking of Walter Cronkite at the end of his life, reading Ms. Stanley's quote. "There will never be an anchor like Walter Cronkite. And thank heaven for that." And I wonder after reading that devastating comment, whether he thought to himself: 'Ms. Stanley, what exactly did I do that was so wrong?'
And just for clarification, Walter Cronkite did not say that. I just made it up. Clarity is important.
Poliwood airs on Showtime this month.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As always, ageism is the worst of the isms. And especially in this sad case. But when you have the worst generation dissing the best by trying to redefine the past, then there's much more than a gap involved. Critics too young to respect elders have an agenda. They don't call 'em XYZs for nothing. After all, what good can come of it if your generation is symbolized by the end of the alphabet? Food for thought.
Wow, Barry has embraced the other Barry's approach to dealing with criticism -- attack the messenger. The left is becoming more thin skinned with each passing moment.
For intelligent individuals (meaning, the kind that actually think for themselves) Stanley's thoughts are regarded as her opinion; not the word of God to avoid this film.
Your argument is duly noted. Given that the subject matter interests me and the subject matter itself will be enough to inspire me to see it, I will decide for myself the quality or lack thereof of this film.
Establishment critics like Alessandra Stanley and Michiko Kakutani, (who's wrong so often it seems she doesn't want to be right), are oblivious to the fact that the blinkered outlook that has driven print media into its present perilous state, is the same blinkered outlook that hired their critics. If capricious, self-important vitriol is what you're looking for, look no further than the pages of the New York Times. The more out of touch critics like Alessandra Stanley get, the faster their formerly great employers will drive themselves to extinction. And good riddance to them.
"she alters reality to fit her thesis. It is blatantly inaccurate and deceitful. It is a bogus sentence, illogical, and fraudulent
Are these not American journalism has become?
Barry, this is the generation raised on cold, impersonal bits and hits, roguish video games, poison pop thug music and evil is hip sheepishness. Lies are their truth and they have no soul. If there was a draft, they'd be forced to wake up. As it is, they are sleeping through our chaotic present and rewriting a past they only wished they lived in.
Oh, why not criticize a critic? We have the internet today, anybody can attack anybody else. The old rules no longer apply.
Mr. Levinson, I am a fan of your work and I also wrote a critical review of Ms. Stanley's article, this one on comedy, http://tin
Mr Levison,
A quote from Kurt Vonnegut that I believe is quite relevant in this case:
"I have long felt that any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel {creative expression} is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae or a banana split."
Great quote!
I just watched Poliwood and I thought it was very well done.
Sometimes, you just have to put the critics in their place, especially when they are inaccurate.
I say good for Barry Levinson for putting this critic in her place!
Bravo Barry!
But you're forgetting something about the Cronkite announcement of JFK's death. The other two announcements by other broadcasters weren't shown ad nauseam through the next several decades.
Exactly, and here you make Barry's point. It was replayed over the decades because it is the most human, compassionate and the best television. Without googling the answer, can you even name the other two anchors that day?
Yes, anyone in that chair. If the nation can find Rudi Guilliani and George Bush reassuring in a crisis - and it did - then this is not an enormously demanding role.
Just a question on facts for Mr. Levinson: did the media portray Obama as rising from poverty? His parents were both college students when he was born, but the kind of poverty experienced by college students is not what one thinks of when discussing poverty in America. I have not read Obama's account of his early childhood abroad, but I do recall a media focus not on poverty but on the schools he attended. The poverty of his Kenyan family, with whom he never lived, was highlighted. The media portrayal of his grandparents, with whom he eventually settled, was that of a middle class family -- steadily employed with a daughter through college and a grandson they were able to get into a top prep school.
Yes, the narrative of President Obamas early childhood was indeed one of rising up from difficult circumstances and THEN attending the best schools and such.
Alessandra Stanley is notorious for her inaccuracies and errors. She is careless and lazy., and has always been a disaster as a tv critic. The mystery (and the real story/dirt) is how did she ever get her gig at the NYT in the first place, and why is she kept on?
Thank you Mr. Levinson. I've read Alessandra Stanley's reviews for years, and have noticed inaccuracies left and right in her pieces. I've also written to the editors of The New York Times and pointed this out. Unfortunately, the editors of said paper apparently don't care what their readers think (hence their dwindling circulation). Ms Stanley personifies what's wrong with The New York Times. A third rate critic who's a legend in her own mind (and no one else's).
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
