« Lefties Complain: Can’t We Bury Conservative Bestsellers? | Home | Retire the Football Helmet! »
Barry Levinson’s Blundering Attack on Times Critic Alessandra Stanley
By Kyle | November 10, 2009
I’m all in favor of a dustup between a well-known film director and a New York Times critic, but Barry Levinson’s piece on the alleged shortcomings of TV critic Stanley is an embarrassment to Levinson and a rape of the English language. Can’t the Huffington Post afford copy editors? Failing that, can’t Levinson? Levinson is a rich man. He’s a professional writer, is he not? Am I wrong to expect him to write in standard English? I’m picturing any English teacher I ever had showering Levinson’s essay with red ink.
Examples:
I only cover the two conventions and the inauguration merely as the backdrop for the intersection of politics, media, and entertainment as the cameras followed the journey of the Creative Coalition through these events.
The word “only” should be struck since “merely” is coming up behind it. The verb tense should not change in mid-sentence.
I never asked for, nor was refused any such request for the one simple reason…
You don’t “ask for” a request. It’s redundant. You make a request.
At another point, Ms. Stanley goes on to state that my observations about the media were incorrect because the media did not determine the outcome of the 2008 election. Like her previous comment, the fact that Obama won was not the point of the piece.
The second sentence is a mess. Discard and start over, please.
But, Poliwood does address the importance of telegenic (TV friendly) political figures, of which Obama is one of them.
Strike the comma. We know what telegenic means. If you don’t believe that, just call the figures “TV-friendly.” “Of which Obama is one of them”? Ugh.
Is Ms. Stanley suggesting that Obama’s attractive appearance, his ability as a great speaker, his youth and vibrancy, and his story of rising from poverty as shown on television had absolutely no effect on him becoming President of United States?
Say “his great speaking ability,” not “his ability as a great speaker.” Say “the televised story of his rise from poverty,” not “his story,” which implies that the facts behind said story are in dispute. And it’s “his becoming,” not “him becoming.”
Ms. Stanley writes, “Poliwood gets on the bus with a group of politically minded movie stars, and forgets to get off and on to the campaign.” We didn’t forget. It was not the point of the film essay. There can only be two reasons for her fraudulent statement…
How can this statement be “fraudulent,” Barry? You acknowledge that it’s true when you write, “We didn’t forget. It was not the point….”? Even if Stanley had misstated the facts, she would hardly be guilty of fraud.
To reiterate, criticism is a part of a filmmaker’s journey. Any time you attempt to tackle a subject that is complicated, one is open to criticism. It comes with the territory. A WARNING: to any thin-skinned filmmaker, get out of this line of work quickly or you’ll die a hemophiliac. But when one’s work is used as fodder for a critic such as Ms. Stanley, then I feel I must speak up… and throw caution to the wind. I know the old adage, “Never get into a battle with someone who orders ink by the gallon,” but I can’t help myself.
Wow. Count the cliches. Where, Barry, did you get the idea that one is open to criticism only when tackling something complicated? If you’re an artist and produce any work for public appraisal, you automatically open yourself up to potential criticism, even if you’re making a sex comedy. Also: Is hemophilia a condition that is caused by suffering cuts or aggravation?
I have a better idea for a concluding cliche, Barry. Don’t start an ass-kicking contest if you’re a one-legged man.
Topics: Movies |
November 10th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Ha! Now we know why he hasn’t made a good movie in eons. Wish you had reviewed Poliwood … oh, the material you could throw some cliches at …
November 11th, 2009 at 1:15 am
I like the way you took that apart.
Did Obama really rise from poverty? If he was “poor,” wasn’t it because his parents were students? I thought that he had help from his maternal grandparents.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I think you went easy on him. Besides the redundancies and such, it’s just such mangled writing. So clunky and disjointed. Maybe he was posting drunk.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
I don’t understand the connection between being thin-skinned and dying a hemophiliac. Wha? Note that being thin-skinned in Hollywood does not cause death FROM hemophilia, but when you die you will BE a hemophiliac.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
He’s a film director. Why should he be expected to know how to communicate with other human beings?