I've received a fair amount of negative feedback on my review of "Waiting for Superman," the Davis Guggenheim-directed documentary about the struggling U.S. education system. For the most part, I stand accused of being "biased," "politically slanted" and even "an unadulterated liberal bigot." So I thought I'd take a moment to respond.
It's clear that the offense was caused by my opening sentence:
"Whether it’s a Fox News host shouting down a liberal guest or filmmaker Michael Moore shaming a well-dressed capitalist, much of our public discourse today feels like the run-up to a professional wrestling match instead of democracy. But there are some issues — particularly our country’s failing schools — that can’t afford to wait on the sidelines any longer."
My intent here, in case you missed it, was to demonstrate how ineffective our style of public discourse has become, relying mostly on shouting and/or name-calling instead of honest, respectful conversation about some really big problems.
My intent here, in case you missed it, was to demonstrate how ineffective our style of public discourse has become, relying mostly on shouting and/or name-calling instead of honest, respectful conversation about some really big problems.
Re-reading it now, I can see that the examples I chose (Fox News, Michael Moore) were too inflammatory - and I wish I could revise it to say that Michael Moore was attempting to shame a well-dressed capitalist (whether he succeeds or not is up to the viewer). But I doubt that would make much difference, because what I took away from this experience is that there will always be some people who stop reading and ramp up to anger the moment they think they've encountered an idea they might disagree with. Unfortunately, this kind of proves my point, doesn't it?
But more important here is the misconception that a movie critic is supposed to be "fair and balanced," something I heard from almost everyone who wrote to complain. Allow me to clarify:
As a critic, it is my job to give you my opinion. Whether it's my personal aversion to shallow female roles or how many fart jokes I think are too many, everything I write is my opinion. And I prefer that you know where I'm coming from upfront; what you choose to do with it from there is entirely up to you.
On the flip side, when I write an article profiling a filmmaker (as I did with Davis Guggenheim), my opinion is no longer relevant. Instead, I focus on delivering an honest portrayal of the person, their work, and what they hope to accomplish with it. To date, no one has complained that my Guggenheim article was "politically slanted" -- nor should they.
Until Netflix finally discovers the algorithm that can generate an entirely objective movie recommendation, we're forced to rely on the subjective opinions of critics, bloggers, or whoever else you think has a worthwhile point of view. If you still believe we're supposed to be "fair and balanced," then I may not be the critic for you. But good luck finding another one without an opinion.
In my biased, slanted viewpoint: there can never be too many fart jokes.
ReplyDeleteNicely said, Alison. As critics, we 'critique' things. If we simply reported on the 100% objective facts of a film, people would read little else than a synopsis.
ReplyDeleteOh, how I wish the UT comments sections were more constructive. This is the same forum where someone said they were glad that a man crossing illegally into the US from Mexico died. The dead man's brother read the report and then the comments section. Can you imagine?
ReplyDelete"Democracy is the worst form of government ever developed - except for all other forms of government." - paraphrasing of Winston Churchill
ReplyDeleteNegative feedback is the most rewarding thing you can get after sharing an opinion - especially when it's hypocritical. I could see how someone could be confused by the wording of that opening paragraph, though, as it seems to imply that the puerile nature of the current discourse is fine iff it's about the failure of our schools. Of course, that implication is rendered irrelevant in the very next sentence so it's hard to see the issue. Unless it's that you bashed Fox News, the news network that has a show for a guy who openly admits (outside of his show) that he's not a newsman but an entertainer in the mold of Howard Beale - because that is totally unjustified. Funny stuff. If that's as inflammatory as you're going to get, I think people need to settle down.
ReplyDelete