TECH2

For as long as there have been movies, there have been movie critics. I’m sure 100 years ago there was some proto-Ebert giving a thumbs up to A Fool There Was and a thumbs down to The Cheat, angering fans of both in equal measure.

Art, especially when offered for sale, begets criticism. Such is the nature of the world. As much as I eschew, and actively dislike, traditional movie reviews, I can see their place.

But what you can’t do, as a creator, is attack your critics. Trust me, you want to, but you can’t.

It’s especially bad when your spouse does it. Which is exactly what happened between a fellow reviewer and the spouse of the writer of, I’m not kidding, Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2.

Let the fireworks begin. This will be amusing.

Big Picture, Big Sound is run by Chris Boylan, a friend of many of us here at Sound&Vision (we all go to the same events every year). And, full disclosure, I’ve written for his site, though not in several years.

For her 1 out of 4 star review of Paul Blart: Mall Mop 2, Rachel Cericola used phrases such as “painful, unfunny mess” and sentences like “If you like Die Hard, True Lies and Taken... well, go watch those movies. Do anything to stay away from Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2.”

Compared to other reviews, she was tame in her dismissal of this pathetic attempt at big screen film making.

Imagine her surprise, then, when a woman apparently the wife of screenwriter Nick Bakay emailed her. Hilarity ensued. Here’s the text so you don’t have to scroll to the image at the top.

I read your Paul Blart review. Sorry you didn’t like it. Knowing nothing about you, I’m not sure it was written for you. Are you a pre-teen? Are you a teen on a date? Are you a parent of a kid who has to sit through the movie? Aside from being a freelance reviewer of many things not film according to my research are you a Kevin James fan? A Nick Bakay fan? I’ve racked my brains trying to come up with one single reason a grown woman would have to shit on a kid’s film?

Paul Blart cost $25m to make and garnered $183m at the box office. Paul Blart II cost $30m and as of today is at $107m. That’s cockadoodle profit.

You are a bane to the existence of the creative writers. And evidently you have no clue what kind of politics it takes to get a film made in Hollywood. That you were allowed to review the BluRay DVD rather than an actual film pretty much says it all. Good luck Rachel.
Keep on hating.

I have questions. Amazingly, not even in my top 10 is “WTF is a cockadoodle?”.

But lets dive into this, because beneath the perfect setup for jokes is an underlying idea is so horribly misguided as to be sad. And yes, as far as we can verify, this is his wife (or at least, his wife’s email…).

First of all, her assertion that Paul Blarp: Mall Cop 2 is a kids film specious at best, and ridiculous at worst. In what way is a movie about a middle-aged mall cop something “for teens” or even less, “teens on a date.” I have to question if Mrs. Bakay knows any teens, or perhaps ever even was one.

Other than the fact that its bland slapstick “comedy” is as nonthreatening as a glass of tepid water, nothing about this movie is aimed towards kids or young adults. Whether or not it was written with this intention is irrelevant. The movie wasn’t marketed that way, so it is perfectly reasonable for adults to expect a movie for at least “all ages” and for a reviewer to review it as such.

Next is the insidious and pervasive equation that profits=quality. This is laughably untrue. Profits=profits. Look, I’m not naive. Hollywood studios are business, usually publicly traded. Their goal is profit, not art. That is fine (or at least, is what it is).

But to say that a movie made money and therefore it’s good is as asinine as saying “McDonalds is the most profitable restaurant chain, therefore it has the best food.”

Just because someone paid to see a movie, doesn’t mean 1) they thought it was good, or 2) they enjoyed it. Maybe everyone who went to see this movie thought “eh, I’ve got nothing else to do tonight, and this is a thing to shove in my eyeballs.” And if they walked out and said “that was meh” or “I’ll never get that 94 minutes back” they still already paid for the movie.

”You are a bane to the existence of the creative writers”

This is offensively stupid. Here Mrs. Bakay goes full on ad hominem, the recourse of the petty and petulant who lack the facts to make their case.

Well guess what, I am a creative writer, and let me say AS a creative writer, critics are the price you pay for doing the business of creating commercially. If you just sit in a dark room, Dickinson-style, and never let anyone see what you're doing, well, that's lame, but congrats, you're 100% free from criticism (and praise).

But if you want people to see your art (and have the nerve to charge them for it) there are going to be people who criticize it. That's how it is.

And guess what, this is a good thing. A great thing, in fact. No matter how much you trust your beta readers, colleagues, and friends to give you quality feedback, no one is going to be more honest about your work than a stranger on the Internet. Maybe they’re full of crap, but maybe they’re not.

Don’t get me wrong, I hate when my book gets a bad review. But sometimes (*cough* rarely *cough*) there’s a useful tip in a well written review. Usually there's not, but again, such is the price you pay.

But that’s not even the crazy part

I think what’s the most overwhelmingly insane aspect of this email is that it’s clear Mrs. Bakay thinks the movie is crap too. Note that not once did she defend the movie on its merits: She starts with excuses like “it’s for kids”; moves on to how much money it made; sprinkles in a bit of ad hominem; talks about the difficult politics of making a movie; then tries to slam that it’s a Blu-ray review not a theatrical review (for a movie that wasn’t screened for critics).

It’s telling that not once did she say it was funny, well written, or well acted. Not once did she say people enjoyed it. Not once did she say she enjoyed it.

Because she can’t. Paul Mart: Ball Cup 2 is a perfect example of the lazy, cash-grab "filmmaking" typical of Happy Madison Productions. It’s not meant to be funny. It’s a product meant to be the absolute bare minimum of what can be considered “entertainment.” True lowest-common-denominator trash that is just un-boring enough to keep a handful of people entertained long enough to absorb some product placement. Fine, whatever.

What blows my mind is that not only does the Bakay household not embrace this, but are so ensconced in their own bubble as to lash out when criticized about it.

Here's what I mean. If I was ever asked to write Plub Blarb: Mall Blart 8 I would totally do it. Because why not? A chance to write a Hollywood movie? Sure. And I’d try to make it funny, and I’d hope it came out good. But if it didn’t, and critics said it was the worst movie since Pub Bub: Mub Bub 2, I’d say “Yep, you’re right. But it’s keeping me employed as a writer, I’m in the Guild, and I’ll do better next time.”

Or to quote the great Michael Caine, when talking about Jaws: The Revenge: “I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific.”

Which is to say...

Maybe someone with a long career in Hollywood should either embrace the work they've done that's clearly just for a paycheck, or not take those jobs and do something better.

Or at the very least, not lash out against a movie reviewer that's making a tiny fraction of what they do.