New Yorker critic breaks embaro on "Dragon Tattoo," defends it in arrogant email

Director is p-i-s-s-e-d, and should be.

The email from Denby to him is like Bill O'Reilly's wet dream of how liberal elite critics write:

http://www.movieline.com/2011/12/smug-new-yorker-critic-somehow-manages-to-compel-sympathy-for-scott-rudin.php?_r=true

 

Just one clarification: Rudin is the producer involved in the spat. David Fincher is the director.

 

These issues have existed for years and will continue to exist for years. Movie companies are very, very protective. They don't care about whether you liked the movie, either, just that you followed their rules. And you signed up to follow their rules, so you should. If you have a problem with it, don't go to the screener. Either way, you won't get to review the movie in advance of when they want you to.

The e-mail itself is remarkably awful in regards to its pretension, dishonesty and poor syntax.

 

Without reference to the e-mail or the personalities, please allow me make the case on behalf of common sense:

Embargo? It's a fucking movie review.

Thanks.

 

Don't sign it then.

 

I was commenting broadly on behalf of common sense, not on the specific behavior of either party.

It is as ridiculous to stipulate an embargo on a movie review as it is to agree to one.

 

I believe the Geneva Conventions have specific language regarding spoilers. This is an atrocity.

 

And what this does, as much as anything, is make me want to see "We Bought a Zoo."

 

I don't know a thing about movie reviews, except that I normally disagree. But considering how much money companies have tied up in making movies, it makes perfect sense to me to allow critics to screen them early, with an agreement that the reviews won't be published until the week that the movie is released. It works for the reviewer as well, because a review is usually the most useful on opening weekend.

I can see how blowing the embargo could force other outlets to file their own reviews, possibly depriving the movie of buzz on opening weekend. So I'd be pissed, too.

 

The article claims the movie was shown to the critics in order to make the deadline for the New York Film Critics Circle awards vote. Obviously, if Denby agreed to the embargo, he should keep his word. The producers' attitude of "For awards? You've seen it. For reviews? Movie, what movie?" stinks, though.

 

So (playing, as always, devil's advocate) you, Mr. Movie Producer, expect me, Critic, to function as part of your promotional apparatus.

 

Don't sign it then.