In Which I Apply For A Position As A Freelance Film Reviewer For Premiere.com

From my e-mail file:

To: Gene "Gene, The Dancing Machine" Newman

Editorial Director

Hachette Digital

From: Glenn Kenny

Dear Gene (if I may call you Gene),

I was having a bite with my buddy Andrew "Filmbrain" Grant the other day, and he said to me, apropos of nothing, "Have you looked at the reviews section of Premiere.com lately?"

"No," I replied. "Why would I wanna do that?"

"Well," he said, "It's just such an atrocity. They have this unbelievably lame new format for the reviews, where they break it up into little thematic modules, like 'The Pitch,' and 'The Not-So-Good,'' 'A Personal Fact About Us,' and stuff like that. It's really horrific."

A little later I checked it out, and sure enough, it was just as Andrew said. Only, seeing as for the past few months I've been trying to break out of my so-called "print mentality," I didn't find it lame at all. No. It was brisk, it was punchy, it was to the point, it was funsy—in short, it was very "new media" (Tah-rah!), and, thus, something that I feel I really need to be a part of.

So. Despite the fact that when I parted ways with Premiere.com I vowed that I would have nothing further to do with that enterprise, I'm thinking that I might want in again. I'm writing to you because I infer that you, a recent hire from over at Maxim, were responsible for this new, innovative editorial tack, so I want to go to the source. To be perfectly honest, I also see here an opportunity to update some of my other ossified attitudes, which I understand is necessary in order to survive in the brave new digital media world. To that end, I've drafted an audition piece, if you will, using as my subject that old French chestnut Au Hasard, Balthazar.

Au Hasard, Balthazar

Starring: Anna Wiazamsky, Walter Green, Pierre Klossowski

Directed by: Robert Bresson

The Pitch: A donkey in provincial France gets passed from owner to owner until it, like, dies.

What It Really Is: Apparently, a "meditation" on life, suffering, and grace, and that kind of stuff.

The Hook: Director Bresson uses real settings and non-professional actors to achieve a distinctive feel.

The Not-So-Good: The distinctive feel is too often that you're about to doze off. Beyond Balthazar, few of the characters are given much to do. Pierre Klossowski (a real-life book-writer, we understand) has a relationship with Balthazar and the two have no chemistry whatsoever. Also, what's with all the close-ups of hands? And double also, the character played by Anna Wiazemsky gets gang-raped and does nothing about it. How about a little acknowledgement of grrrl power, Monsieur Bresson?

Personal Fact About Us: When we were a kid, our parents took us to Hershey Park, and at the petting zoo, our little brother was petting a donkey—or was it a mule? Kind of hard to remember, it was, like, 40 years ago—and the animal gave him a hard kick in the chest with BOTH its back legs. Really freaked our brother out.

Can We Be Serious For A Moment?: Seriously? What this movie really needed was for Andy Samberg as Mark Wahlberg to show up and have a nice little chat with Balthazar.  

So, what do you think? I gotta say, I feel like a duck taking to water and I need a bigger pond. What are you guys paying these days, anyway?

Gimme a call at [number redacted] and let me know your thoughts. I'd really appreciate it.

Best, Glenn

 

Comments

[bill]

Did you really send that e-mail?

[Glenn Kenny]

Um, no. I'm guessing Mr. Newman doesn't really have a highly developed sense of irony, or even sarcasm, and would have hence perhaps been apt to take it seriously.

[Josh]

Very amusing, but it also makes me sad.

Among other things, why the use of first person plural?

And are they really such dullards, or do they just assume anyone still visiting their site is?

[bill]

Okay, well, I think you should send it. Hell, I thought you described the movie to a T!

[Rob]

Perhaps it's a good thing that I've stayed away from Premier for so long.... this is the first time I've seen that style of film review.

It made me want to vomit.

[Sam Adams]

You neglected to use the phrase "strum and drang."

[Mark J]

It's a sad state of affairs...Premiere used to be a wonderful magazine, and I miss it.

[Pedro Canhenha]

It's sad that publications like Premiere that were once a staple are now nothing but a small blip on the radar. I was a subscriber for almost 7 years and read Mr. Kenny's reviews attentively. Thankfully I have bookmarked this site and have already passed it on for so many of my friends, but for a while I was intrigued what had happened. I hope to continue reading your wonderful texts/dissertations/reviews/insights.

[Campaspe]

What Mark J said. And also Josh--funny post and all, but it makes me sad, too.

[Ted]

Glenn! You're the best!
While reading your faux Premiere.com review, I couldn't help but think of an "article" I read online recently. The piece, entitled (and I kid you not) "Who's Weirder? David Lynch or Darren Aronovsky?", presented it's case in three inane, useless, gramatically questionable paragraphs and, unsurprisingly, offered no answer. (Never mind the fact that they were comparing two COMPLETELY different directors!)
Not only is Pauline Kael spinning in her grave but Rex Reed is in a mad tizzy because, compared to this new generation of insta-journalists, he's a goddamn genius.
Sad is right, guys.

[Glenn Kenny]

To Josh, Pedro, Campaspe, Mark J., Ted...all of you. Thanks.

The pertinent film exchange that comes to mind is from "Citizen Kane."

Thompson: Still, I can't help but feel sorry for Mr. Kane...

Susan Alexander: You think I don't?

[Keith Gow]

Wow, I gave up on Premiere after you left, Glenn. But now it's worse than ever. Nobody has to write a review anymore, let alone craft some of the elegant critiques you penned.

Oh, dear.

[Rodrigo Rothschild]

I hadn't been over to premier.com since that fateful day. Just did and wow, that was ugly. And in the end I find your post more sad than funny.
On the other hand, your departure from the magazine gave birth to this wonderful blog and pointed the way (at least on my case) to The Auteurs, which is the best place ever.

Really hope things have worked out for you since then.

[Aaron Hillis]

Actually, that wasn't Andrew -- it was me, he who quit writing for Premiere in solidarity to your undue letting-go. Stop confusing the Benten boyz.

Also, three years ago I was asked to write up "Au Hasard Balthazar" in bullet point form for real (by that point, Moviefone's then existing Indie Film Guide was entirely watered down by corporate demand), and sadly made more money than Premiere ever paid. Can't find a record of it online anymore, but it looked not unlike this: http://movies.aol.com/franchise/indiefilmguide/spotlight/enfant_movie -- not my finest hour, but apropos to yr post.

When I next see you, we must talk REV ROAD + BEN BUTTON.

[Dan]

@Sam Adams

Nah, it's too old of a movie. Use "zeitgeist".

[GloryG]

I'm not trying to direct people to the site, but I wanted to mention that there's a redesign going on (beta.premiere.com), which seems to make it even more impossible to find the precious few of Glenn's reviews that actually made it online, so get them while you can.

[novakant]

It's similar on the other side of the pond - I used to read "Empire", because they actually have some good writers who love film and know their stuff. The problem is that the format of the magazine makes it hard to appreciate the quality of their work. You have to wade through tons of ads, "sponsored features", star profiles, boring interviews, "lad mag" features, trivia and reader contest stuff to get to the good bits. This is really a shame, because many of the reviews (nothing wrong with short reviews per se) and most of the longer, serious pieces are actually very good.

[Dennis Doros]

I love this! And of course, if Balthazar met Kelly from Clerks 2, I can see remake possibilities that Premiere can get behind, so to speak. Premiere, servicing the film industry! (An Ohio farm joke.)

[MovieMan0283]

Am I the only one who can't read the section beginning "I was having a bit with my buddy..." because the right side of the paragraph is cut off? Although I think I got the gist of it...

[Gene]

Hey Glen,
Saw you on the street the other day outside the building. Remember, I was hanging with Rog and you said hello. Give a call, maybe I have some work for you.
G.

[Glenn Kenny]

Well, nice to know you're a good sport, Gene. As it happens, I'm not looking for work at the moment. But it never ceases to amuse me that the first instinct of some of the people I take issue with—yourself, David Poland, Chuck Stephens—is to assume that I am. "Hey, you're full of shit." "Oh YEAH? Well, you don't have a job!" Great line of argument, that.

Anyhow, I'm sure you're a nice enough guy—we have at least one real (as opposed to just Facebook) friend in common—and I appreciate everybody's need to make a living. And I know things change. But, as the comments above attest, I'm not the only one who thinks what you and your cohorts are doing to Premiere is, excuse my language, a fucking shame. Then again, I'm sentimental. So sue me.

[DennisY]

I'm with you Glenn. When will these new media people learn that the only thing that works online is simply porting over the long-form, verbose methods that drove Premiere magazine to its grave. I mean, what kind of unfit dullard doesn't realize that, just because something doesn't work in magazine format, doesn't mean you shouldn't pathetically cling to it for dear life, simply because of an inability to adapt. Everyone knows that the ability to craft a long sentence with as many credibility-enhancing allusions is the only thing that's important when you're a writer. The ability to understand readers' wants and provide them with insight that's delivered in a way that's more appropriate for the media by which it's being delivered? No one with leather elbow pads taught us that 20 years ago, so it must be totally useless. Let the past be the past, Glenn, and write about movies. We come here to hear what you have to say about film, not to hear you indulge your bitterness brought on by the world's encouragement to adapt to the times. Although, you did write a review of a review. That's kind of meta. See, you're taking steps in the right direction!

[Glenn Kenny]

Actually, Dennis Y, YOU don't come here at all, and you don't actually know a thing about what drove the print version of "Premiere" into its grave. And your rationales for the dumbing-down of movie criticism smack of, among other things, sock-puppetry. But thanks for your thoughts. Did Todd Anderman slip you ten bucks, or something?

[bill]

DennisY disgusts me.

[bill]

Sorry, more: Dennis, the only thing that matters in writing is GOOD writing. What you're advocating is, quite literally, the death of that. I naively thought that the decisions that led to Premiere being what it is now were purely financial in nature. I didn't realize that anybody actually thought this shit was GOOD, was BETTER than actual writing. My God, man, what do you read in your free time?? Whatever lists might happen to be nearby?

[Nathan Duke]

Dennis Y talks about "the ability to understand readers' wants" and deliver "in a way more appropriate for the media by which it's being delivered." But he's obviously misread "readers' wants" for this blog. I'm appalled at how fluffy film criticism has become and am glad that there are still web sites like this one where thoughtful writing on film is still regularly available.

[Campaspe]

DennisY: There is absolutely nothing new, media or otherwise, about short-form reviewing. I can crack open an old Picturegoer or Photoplay and find them by the truckload. Indeed, old capsule reviews abound on the Web, and they show up Premiere.com for what it is. Here is a review, written by James Shelly Hamilton, of George Cukor's 1935 film of David Copperfield:

http://www.nbrmp.org/features/nbrmagazine_review.cfm?id=18

As it happens, this review is five paragraphs. The review Glenn links to above is also five paragraphs. The difference is that Hamilton's review has content as well as a writing style mercifully free from labored attempts to be witty. The Premiere review of Twilight is one long sophomoric joke, although the reviewer does allude to the Bible in her last graf, no doubt solely to enhance her credibility with snobs like Glenn and me. Still, the only true insight (to use your word) the Premiere capsule provides is that now we have another source for reviews that signal the writer's grim determination to be the cutest person in the room. If that's the New Media, brother, you can have it.

[B.W.]

To play devil's advocate:

Not that I'd read it by choice, but this stuff doesn't strike me as any worse than your average, say, Entertainment Weekly piece. And I'm not convinced that there isn't a place for that kind of writing. Remember, serious cinephiles constitute a rather miniscule minority of moviegoers. I never read the old Premiere so I can't comment on its fall from grace; I'll take everyone's word that it was a once-great publication, especially knowing that Glenn was on board. But if we can get past that, and acknowledge that the internet has provides us with MORE opportunities to read (and write) serious film criticism than ever before, then I'm not sure this is worth complaining about. Let them have their snarky, brevity-and-joke-based reviews. It's not like we have to read it.

[bill]

That "Twilight" review is...something. "Keep your religion our of our vampires, Hollywood"?? Because all we get from Hollywood are religious films? And because religion and vampires have never before had anything to do with each other?

[Campaspe]

B.W., the problem is that the people who are writing real criticism are usually doing it either for love or for a pittance, while crap like the new Premiere.com format becomes the rule for paying gigs. I no more want to see that happen than I want to see serious filmmakers restricted to video microbudgets while all the money goes to comic book movies. And just as there remains a market for serious filmmakers, I think there is a market for serious criticism as well.