movie review: Heckler
Heckler is a classic bait-and-switch, to the point where even the title is misleading. As a result of the blatant dishonesty, I was too frustrated to enjoy the movie as much as I might have.
According to nearly (note the qualifier) every blurb and review I could find, Heckler is a documentary about . . . well, about hecklers, which would make the title appropriate enough. Different aspects of hecklers are explored -- what motivates them, how they affect a performance, how performers feel about them (mostly frustration and hatred, although some of the comedians interviewed actually express amusement) and even how the act of heckling reflects on society as a whole. This is the movie Heckler, by all accounts, promises to be, this is the movie I wanted to see -- the concept is fascinating for anyone interested in either human behavior or the concepts of live performance -- and, for roughly fifteen minutes, this is the movie that is presented.
Then, there is a segment that rhetorically asks "what is the difference between a critic and a heckler?" and the film reveals its true target: critics. Hecklers are almost completely forgotten, and rarely mentioned again throughout the remainder of the film, as the focus shifts to critics and never returns to the alleged main topic. This is what I mean by calling it a bait-and-switch, and I question the filmmakers' motives; when I ask myself exactly why they would call their film Heckler, and then describe it as a documentary about hecklers, only for it to really be a documentary about critics, I cannot come up with any answer that allows for respect for the film's audience. Granted, the movie itself points out that critics and hecklers, from a performer's point of view, are related topics, but if I rent a movie called Dracula: A Documentary, and then spend an hour watching a documentary about Frankenstein, I won't care if the topics are related, I'm going to be pretty annoyed.
That being said, if you can get past the dishonest intentions of the filmmakers (I clearly never did) than Heckler does have some interesting tidbits to offer. As the film's co-producer, co-writer, and host, Jamie Kennedy interviews academics, actors, critics, filmmakers, hecklers, musicians, and a lot of comedians (most of them speaking seriously, rather than going for laughs), and while many of them merely unleash monologues of hatred toward critics and hecklers, many other interviews include amusing anecdotes or valid insights into the motivations behind criticism and heckling, as well as critics' role in the entertainment community.
But fairly soon into the film, the overall tone of the movie becomes hostile and self-indulgent. I mean, let's review each of the main points the movie strives to make:
1. Critics (amateur and professional alike) and hecklers tend to be narcissistic and selfish, caring more about drawing attention to their own imagined creativity than about allowing people to enjoy the show.
2. Critics and hecklers don't care whether they're hurting the feelings of the people they're criticizing.
3. Critics and hecklers typically don't have a background in the field they're criticizing, which should make you question the validity of their views.
4. The accessability and anonymity of the Internet allows hundreds of unqualified people to express their views, which often results in reviews that lack civility.
These are all valid points, but where is Jamie Kennedy going with all of this? His ultimate point seems to be, "you don't know what you're talking about, so if you don't like something, shut up."
Kennedy even goes so far as to track down and confront some of his harsher online critics. Some of them have written unnecessarily cruel comments that focus hostility at the performer and offer only vague comments about Kennedy's films. But some of the critics Kennedy confronts have written harsh, but well-written and carefully thought out reviews. Kennedy does not make a distinction between these people. The scenes in which he confronts these critics show a performer sinking to a low that should have him outright embarrased. It would be one thing if he tried to engage them in meaningful dialogue, which would be fascinating. Instead, Kennedy merely complains, swears, threatens ("I hope you get stomach cancer"), and whines. "I have feelings too," he whimpers to one critic, while another one is asked, "why do you hate me?"
I understand Kennedy's point here -- that many of these critics have gone beyond merely reviewing the film, in favor of making personal attacks toward the performer -- but this is a monumentally awkward and unconstructive way to go about making his point. In one scene, Kennedy compliments a critic on his vocabulary and writing style, but then suggests that the critic didn't like Kennedy's movie because he hasn't had enough blow-jobs. He then goes on to describe a particularly messy blow-job in great detail -- for no apparent reason other than the obvious motivation to make the critic uncomfortable. It's a disgusting scene, with the disgust existing on multiple levels; the scene is difficult to sit through, and laced with far too much sincere anger to be either funny or insightful.
And Kennedy has enough anger to go around. There is even a segment of the film entitled "Everyone's got an Opinion," which goes so far as to attack even casual remarks people make when they don't like a movie or performance. The inescapable -- and ludicrous -- conclusion being made here is that entertainment criticism of any kind, even informal exchanges made in casual conversation, is cruel and inappropriate. Up to this point, the film has made some valid points, but if Kennedy is going to be so thin-skinned that he doesn't like people even casually talking about his movies with anything other than praise . . . well, maybe he should find another line of work.
According to nearly (note the qualifier) every blurb and review I could find, Heckler is a documentary about . . . well, about hecklers, which would make the title appropriate enough. Different aspects of hecklers are explored -- what motivates them, how they affect a performance, how performers feel about them (mostly frustration and hatred, although some of the comedians interviewed actually express amusement) and even how the act of heckling reflects on society as a whole. This is the movie Heckler, by all accounts, promises to be, this is the movie I wanted to see -- the concept is fascinating for anyone interested in either human behavior or the concepts of live performance -- and, for roughly fifteen minutes, this is the movie that is presented.
Then, there is a segment that rhetorically asks "what is the difference between a critic and a heckler?" and the film reveals its true target: critics. Hecklers are almost completely forgotten, and rarely mentioned again throughout the remainder of the film, as the focus shifts to critics and never returns to the alleged main topic. This is what I mean by calling it a bait-and-switch, and I question the filmmakers' motives; when I ask myself exactly why they would call their film Heckler, and then describe it as a documentary about hecklers, only for it to really be a documentary about critics, I cannot come up with any answer that allows for respect for the film's audience. Granted, the movie itself points out that critics and hecklers, from a performer's point of view, are related topics, but if I rent a movie called Dracula: A Documentary, and then spend an hour watching a documentary about Frankenstein, I won't care if the topics are related, I'm going to be pretty annoyed.
That being said, if you can get past the dishonest intentions of the filmmakers (I clearly never did) than Heckler does have some interesting tidbits to offer. As the film's co-producer, co-writer, and host, Jamie Kennedy interviews academics, actors, critics, filmmakers, hecklers, musicians, and a lot of comedians (most of them speaking seriously, rather than going for laughs), and while many of them merely unleash monologues of hatred toward critics and hecklers, many other interviews include amusing anecdotes or valid insights into the motivations behind criticism and heckling, as well as critics' role in the entertainment community.
But fairly soon into the film, the overall tone of the movie becomes hostile and self-indulgent. I mean, let's review each of the main points the movie strives to make:
1. Critics (amateur and professional alike) and hecklers tend to be narcissistic and selfish, caring more about drawing attention to their own imagined creativity than about allowing people to enjoy the show.
2. Critics and hecklers don't care whether they're hurting the feelings of the people they're criticizing.
3. Critics and hecklers typically don't have a background in the field they're criticizing, which should make you question the validity of their views.
4. The accessability and anonymity of the Internet allows hundreds of unqualified people to express their views, which often results in reviews that lack civility.
These are all valid points, but where is Jamie Kennedy going with all of this? His ultimate point seems to be, "you don't know what you're talking about, so if you don't like something, shut up."
Kennedy even goes so far as to track down and confront some of his harsher online critics. Some of them have written unnecessarily cruel comments that focus hostility at the performer and offer only vague comments about Kennedy's films. But some of the critics Kennedy confronts have written harsh, but well-written and carefully thought out reviews. Kennedy does not make a distinction between these people. The scenes in which he confronts these critics show a performer sinking to a low that should have him outright embarrased. It would be one thing if he tried to engage them in meaningful dialogue, which would be fascinating. Instead, Kennedy merely complains, swears, threatens ("I hope you get stomach cancer"), and whines. "I have feelings too," he whimpers to one critic, while another one is asked, "why do you hate me?"
I understand Kennedy's point here -- that many of these critics have gone beyond merely reviewing the film, in favor of making personal attacks toward the performer -- but this is a monumentally awkward and unconstructive way to go about making his point. In one scene, Kennedy compliments a critic on his vocabulary and writing style, but then suggests that the critic didn't like Kennedy's movie because he hasn't had enough blow-jobs. He then goes on to describe a particularly messy blow-job in great detail -- for no apparent reason other than the obvious motivation to make the critic uncomfortable. It's a disgusting scene, with the disgust existing on multiple levels; the scene is difficult to sit through, and laced with far too much sincere anger to be either funny or insightful.
And Kennedy has enough anger to go around. There is even a segment of the film entitled "Everyone's got an Opinion," which goes so far as to attack even casual remarks people make when they don't like a movie or performance. The inescapable -- and ludicrous -- conclusion being made here is that entertainment criticism of any kind, even informal exchanges made in casual conversation, is cruel and inappropriate. Up to this point, the film has made some valid points, but if Kennedy is going to be so thin-skinned that he doesn't like people even casually talking about his movies with anything other than praise . . . well, maybe he should find another line of work.
posted by Movie Man at
2:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home