Rights and Wrongs of Film Commentary

What are some of the articles of the critics’ Bill of Rights?

That they judge a film on its objective contents.

That they analyze for the public’s advantage both the positive and negative aspects of the film.

That they render their opinion as to the desirability of paying money to view the film.

These rights I grant the critic without compunction and without complaint.

What are some of the articles of producers’ Bill of Rights?

That their judges be well-grounded in the field where they have been chosen to render their opinions.

That their films be treated fairly and reasonably and not be subjected to self-serving diatribes that are both low and contemptible.

That their films be judged for the many parts that go into their making, and not simply dismissed without consideration for the many artists who have labored to bring them to the screen.

That even if there is nothing good to be said of a film, the critic desists from personal attacks, hatchet jobs and from salivating so broadly over the body of his kill.

Yes, there are killer critics throughout the world, and particularly in our business--critics who strive mightily and mainly for the purpose of self-aggrandizement, recklessly teetering on the edge of slander.

When I was told that Peter Rainer was selected to review my film “Scissors,” I felt as if I had been mugged in a dark alley. Having read a number of his reviews in both the Herald-Examiner and The Times, I knew him to be of that ilk with a single objective: to tell it in such a manner as to focus attention strictly upon himself.

Being forewarned, I and my colleagues thought we knew what to expect, but I must say Rainer exceeded our most dire predictions. His nasty, childish comments, i.e. “(the actors) all looked like they’d rather be cleaning out latrines with a toothbrush,” reminded me of the sort of giggly humor one used to hear in grade-school play yards.

It was expected that his review would fail to mention any of the contributions of cast and crew: Craig Stearns’ excellent production design on a shoestring budget; Tony Richmond’s stunning camera work; Sharon Stone’s performance, which other critics cited as being remarkable. He may not have thought them worthy, but to have just dismissed them is unconscionable.

Oh, yes, he did say that Steve Railsback looked like an aging Richard Crenna. Whatever that means. Was his poisoned pen aimed at Railsback or Crenna? And why? Because they’re getting older? In any case, is such an observation within the legitimate purview of critical analysis? Is it truly worthy of comment? Does it enlighten the public in any real way? Does it bring credit to the Los Angeles Times? Apparently, Rainer jots down every vagrant thought that pops into his head.

I am ashamed, not for the picture I have made, which fulfilled my vision and which turned out to be all that I wished it to be, but for the pointed, below-the-belt response it exacted from a man who unfortunately represents a newspaper I have subscribed to, trusted and cherished for more than 30 years.