TV, Film, and Entertainment News Daily

Elijah Wood Calls Out Film Critics Who Deal Low Blows

Elijah Wood

When SPINOFF sat down with Elijah Wood at SXSW to discuss “The Trust,” his stylish new crime thriller co-starring Nicolas Cage, I also brought up Roger Ebert’s famously scathing review of his 1994 comedy “North.” That led to an in-depth discussion of the value and ethics of criticism, and the Internet-spurred changes to the relationship between critics and filmmakers.

We’ll bring you more from SXSW about “The Trust,” including the time a body was found on location. For now, however, here’s Wood on contemporary film criticism’s highs and lows.

Spinoff: Roger Ebert infamously hated “North” –

Elijah Wood: He did. He totally hated it.

I’m curious what your response to that is and, by extension, your opinion of film criticism?

Wow.

It’s a big question.

That’s a much larger conversation, I think. But I remember when the film came out, and not necessarily Ebert’s review specifically, because there were a lot of negative reviews. There were a lot of negative reviews of the film that hated it. It didn’t do well, and it wasn’t received very well. I think some people got it.

Elijah Wood in "North"

Elijah Wood in “North”

 

Yeah! I remember as a kid loving that movie and being very perplexed by the animosity for it.

I haven’t seen that movie in a while, but upon revisiting it, it’s a very charming film. I think [Ebert] didn’t see that. I think he thought it was almost mean-spirited. I haven’t read the review in a long time. I do remember it. I feel like he thought it was stupid, but I think he also thought it was mean-spirited in the sense that is was about a kid that wanted to divorce his parents, and wanted to be a free agent. I didn’t find that at all.

But I think the overall notion of film criticism, we’re at an interesting time for that. I think criticism back then — I don’t know — things were held at a different standard. It was written reviews pre-Internet. The Internet has allowed for anyone to be a critic. I think that has had both good results and negative results in the sense that anybody can say anything. I think the level of criticism or the standards for criticism [have changed]. Like, occasionally I’ll read a review and I’ll see, like, grammatical and spelling errors and that shit drives me crazy. I know that has nothing to do with film criticism, but it’s just I don’t think some of those standards apply as much anymore because anybody can start a blog and anybody can say anything.

It’s evened the playing field; it means that everyone can have an opinion.The separation between the audience and the critic has diminished as a result as well. I think that’s interesting. I don’t know. I think there are people that are upholding the standards very well. There are certainly journalists that I really admire. And in some ways the informality of it I like too, despite the fact that I think it comes with a cost. There’s an informality of those people also just being in that world, filmmakers and journalists alike just spending time together and knowing each other and having mutual appreciation. I certainly have that. I know Amy Nicholson and Devin Faraci and Eric Vespe. These are friends, people who I genuinely like a lot and whom I spend time with at festivals. So I see it from that perspective too. It’s a complicated thing to talk about.

Film critics get a lot of flak, and they are certainly some filmmakers who have had some very negative things to say about critics. My perspective is as long as there isn’t a personal attack — I think that’s where I really struggle with some of the informality of the way criticism is now. The notion of pulling someone out and singling them out in a personal way in the context of a film review I think is poor journalism. I think it’s unethical and I think it’s unnecessary. You don’t need to attack people. Do you know what I’m saying?

Story continues below

10_cloverfield_lane_paramount_winstead.0.0

I know what you’re saying. Do you have an example in mind? I do, but I don’t want to speak on your behalf.

Well, this is fresh in my mind because there was a review for “10 Cloverfield Lane,” Thrillist reviewed it and it was a good review, and it cited Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s performance as being really strong. So she retweeted it. And I can’t remember the journalist’s name —

I know who you mean, Jeff Wells.

So he replied to that post and then called her performance out for being poor, and that she was acting through it and not being genuine. Now that’s fucked up for two reasons: One, as a journalist what the fuck are you doing engaging with someone directly on Twitter and calling them out and shitting on them for? Two, it totally denigrates your job as a journalist, and the standards which you should have, and the ethics I think you should try to uphold within the context of film criticism and film journalism. It’s so gross and so improper, and completely unnecessary.

So you didn’t like her performance? Fine. You can totally write that in a review. And there’s a way to say that that isn’t personal. Like “it didn’t work for me” or “I found within the confines of the film it wasn’t as genuine as I would like.” Whatever. There’s a way to articulate it that doesn’t shit on somebody in a really personal way. I find that really offensive. And I think that‘s where the Internet and Twitter and this sort of divide between the creators and the critics getting smaller has problems. That’s where things are problematic, because you can just go on Twitter and sort of say something and spew it out. And there’s a little bit of a distance. There’s a sort of arm’s length distance where you’ve set to the result to that it ultimately will have. You don’t have to see her face. You don’t have see her reaction or how that might hurt. And I think that’s a bummer.

To her credit, she responded –

Fucking awesome! “Was I also too fat for you?” or something like that?

Do you know what that’s in reference to?

‘Cause he called her fat in a film?

Not her. Amy Schumer.

Are you fucking kidding me?

That’s what he does.

What does that have to do with film criticism?

schumer-trainwreck

He said Amy Schumer wasn’t good-looking enough to be in her own movie.

That’s really hurtful. I’m also a firm believer in “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” unless it’s constructive. That’s just me. I don’t want to shit on people if I have the forum to do it. I just think that there comes with that position such a sense of responsibility, human responsibility in addition to a responsibility to good journalism and good writing and interesting critique.

Film criticism can be extraordinary. It can be a great place to constructively and actively think about the film process, and to think about a movie in a way you hadn’t imagined that you’d ever think about it. It can be great. There some reviews where I’d seen the film then I read the review and it made me think about the film in a different way. That’s awesome. It’s that shit that I have absolutely no time for. But it’s not even a film criticism or journalism issue. It’s an internet issue too. It’s happening culturally all over the Internet and outside of the realm of film criticism. It’s a little bit of a bummer.

As someone who works on the Internet every day, I agree.

I mean, look at something like Gamergate and how people can harass people in that regard. It’s a volatile place. And everyone has a voice, so in addition to great people being able to use that as a platform to push forward great ideas and positive things. It’s also an even playing field, so negativity can spread too.

Absolutely. Fun fact, though: Schumer took his criticism and turned into the basis of “12 Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer.”

Which was absolutely brilliant. That piece was incredible.

So she came back with a great response too.

Totally.

“The Trust” made its world premiere at SXSW.

Comments

  • Geoff

    I think at this point, Elijah Wood would have to swing a sledge hammer at my groin to get me to even begin to think about disliking him. Class act, that one.

  • Der Langhaarige

    I recently watched TOP FIVE and there is a wonderful moment, where Chris Rock’s character (although let’s be honest: It was actually Chris Rock himself) confronts a critic, who wrote many low-blow reviews about him and his movies (including one that compares him to Bin Laden) with these simple words: “My mother read this!”

  • teenygozer

    Jeff Wells is the Ann Coulter of film criticism. Like her, he has no talent or taste, so he has to resort to trollish soundbites of nastiness to capture an audience’s attention. Otherwise, he’d just disappear.

  • Livnthedream

    So the moral of the story is, don’t do things that I find offensive even though they generated great things. Makes sense.

  • Livnthedream

    So the moral of the story is, don’t do things that I find offensive even though they generated great things. Makes sense.

  • LotusPrince

    No, the moral of the story is “don’t be an asshole.” Don’t even think about telling me that you didn’t pick up on that.

  • m0r1arty

    If you read between the lines it looks like Mr Woods might be a fellow sealion. Good on him if so and if not it’s still a very reasonable opinion to hold regarding ethical practice when critiquing other people’s art.

  • Edward

    Am I the only one who would LOVE to see Elijah Wood get his own late night show? He’s so open, deep and intelligent, knows how to strike a great conversation that’s actually about something – and he does so in a fun, charming way.

    That’s better material than even Leno or Letterman, if you ask me.

  • NoFace

    This is the internet, I’ll hate and shit on anyone I want.

  • preppy

    Okay. Just don’t be surprised when people call you out on it.

  • Livnthedream

    An asshole by whose definition? Cause people keep changing what that means. You know, like how Martin Luther Kings I have a dream speech is now racist and problematic because [reasons]?

  • petty_patrol_tengu

    Nah man, that would be censorship! #gamergate #pleasekillme

  • petty_patrol_tengu

    An asshole by any definition a reasonable person who didn’t live on webforums would hold. Go back crying to your fellow children.

  • cab

    Totally love Elijah….he’s got it right why is is ok to attach someone personally because your online I hate that stuff. I get people thing celebrities are fair game but stick to talking about performances and not them personally and worse when they attach their children. How classless.

  • ramberk .

    Wait, are you being sarcastic or sincere? Because getting called out is not censorship. Some trolls take that attitude and its hilarious because its so juvenile.

    I mean, its a free country. Say what you want. But don’t complain if people roll their eyes or ignore you. People don’t want to put up with insults.

  • petty_patrol_tengu

    I was mocking NoFace.

  • LotusPrince

    By anyone with a brain that works. Making personal attacks directly to an actor and calling that movie criticism is both wrong on a basic level, and also dickish. If you don’t realize this, then you may be a sociopath.

  • Livnthedream

    So please tell me who was the asshole here: http://archive.is/cEmWJ#selection-26815.5-26835.405

    The author of the piece or the game.

  • Livnthedream

    So please tell me who was the asshole here: http://archive.is/cEmWJ#selection-26815.5-26835.405

  • LotusPrince

    It doesn’t really look like there’s any asshole in that conversation. The creator of the game is trying to keep it clean, even though “hey, guys, lay off” is pretty lame coming from a game designer.