If Heckler is anything for Jamie Kennedy, the film's prime target as someone who has gotten enough heckling for a whole night of comedy acts, it's a feasible and marginal catalyst for all the hate he has gotten over the years from not only critics but people who just seem cold to the idea of "accepting him." Having not seen many of his works, only Malibu's Most Wanted which wasn't particularly compelling but I've without a doubt seen worse, I feel the man is just the public eye's punching bag. He took the throne from Pauly Shore and Tom Green (both men appearing in this film as well) and decides to release his anger and frustration to the hecklers of the world.
A "heckler" is someone with intentions of curbing a person's current formal state. The term is commonly associated with comedy acts, when one arrogant loudmouth decides it would be fun and brilliant to disrupt the performer by yelling something unnecessary at them like, "you suck" or something along those lines. The first twenty minutes of this seventy-nine minute documentary focus directly on those kind of people, and have a variety of comedians such as Arsenio Hall, David Cross, Louie Anderson, and Lewis Black weigh in on the concept and how they've dealt with a heckler in their career.
The remainder of the documentary takes the questionable turn as it then begins to attack film critics and how miserable, sulky, pretentious, idiotic, lazy, evil, and out of touch they are if they rate a product harshly.
As an aspiring film critic myself, I've heard the argument frequently that if you've never made a film you have no right to criticize it. It's a valid point, but by saying that, you're stripping someone of their basic right to have an opinion. Do I need to be president to openly dislike one of his mandates/laws? Do I need to be a chef to say I didn't like this person's food? Do I need to be a landscaper to say I didn't like the look of this yard? Do I need to be a website designer to say I don't like the look of a particularly website? By saying that one is not qualified to state their opinion or look at a film deeply, picking out its flaws and examining its layers pretty much means that one can not have an opinion on pretty much anything unless they've done or experienced it themselves. It's not a sustainable point. One needs to accept the fact that by putting out a piece of work that the ones who pay money to view it in some way, shape, or form have a right to voice their opinion on it. I'm not condoning the action of listlessly shouting at a performer, but everyone has and should have the right to give a mature opinion on something regardless of it being positive or negative. I would've thought many of these comedians, doing a job that is very public and very open, knew that ahead of time.
I'm also not huge on the way this film compares hecklers to critics. First off, comparing film/media critics to some random, ignorant scrub yelling insults to a performing act is a facile, invalid point. One party professionally evaluates art and the meanings it could spawn, while the other gives a very immature, childish statement in an act of unnecessary disrespect. They're incomparable, except in the regard that they could potentially make the party at hand feel bad about themselves, which is not my personal goal when writing/publishing a review. When I give a poor review to a film, I give it to the film and not to those involved. I didn't think I needed to attach a disclaimer like this when I began writing.
Chunks of the short feature are devoted to other little ways different men in the business of film respond to criticism. Noted director Uwe Boll staged a boxing match between him and his critics, which I honestly can't believe. Unique it is, but if someone didn't like your film, what will make them like it if you beat them bloody in a ring, and what does that say about your acceptance of dissent? Eli Roth states the "death of film" are focus groups, little screenings of the first/second/third cuts of films where a private audience (usually made up of the film's target demographic) is invited to watch the film and voice what they like and didn't like. Instead of writing it off as a way for more people to bitch and moan about what they didn't like, filmmakers should think of these groups as ways to not only improve on their own work but connect with their demographic in a stronger way.
While it appears my criticism with Heckler's negative portrait of film critics runs a mile deep, this is nonetheless an interesting documentary, that serves as much more than Kennedy's therapeutic method of coping with sour critics/public. I just kind of wish any of the talents involved would've recognized that their attitude towards critics comes off as bitter and angry, when it's almost cemented in the job description for an actor/comedian. And I'd like to challenge Lewis Black on the fact that when someone's young they do not want to be a critic of any kind. At age five I knew that I wanted to be someone who wrote essays and reviews of films, giving ideas and different views of the medium.
Full, more complete review on http://stevethemovieman.proboards.com
A "heckler" is someone with intentions of curbing a person's current formal state. The term is commonly associated with comedy acts, when one arrogant loudmouth decides it would be fun and brilliant to disrupt the performer by yelling something unnecessary at them like, "you suck" or something along those lines. The first twenty minutes of this seventy-nine minute documentary focus directly on those kind of people, and have a variety of comedians such as Arsenio Hall, David Cross, Louie Anderson, and Lewis Black weigh in on the concept and how they've dealt with a heckler in their career.
The remainder of the documentary takes the questionable turn as it then begins to attack film critics and how miserable, sulky, pretentious, idiotic, lazy, evil, and out of touch they are if they rate a product harshly.
As an aspiring film critic myself, I've heard the argument frequently that if you've never made a film you have no right to criticize it. It's a valid point, but by saying that, you're stripping someone of their basic right to have an opinion. Do I need to be president to openly dislike one of his mandates/laws? Do I need to be a chef to say I didn't like this person's food? Do I need to be a landscaper to say I didn't like the look of this yard? Do I need to be a website designer to say I don't like the look of a particularly website? By saying that one is not qualified to state their opinion or look at a film deeply, picking out its flaws and examining its layers pretty much means that one can not have an opinion on pretty much anything unless they've done or experienced it themselves. It's not a sustainable point. One needs to accept the fact that by putting out a piece of work that the ones who pay money to view it in some way, shape, or form have a right to voice their opinion on it. I'm not condoning the action of listlessly shouting at a performer, but everyone has and should have the right to give a mature opinion on something regardless of it being positive or negative. I would've thought many of these comedians, doing a job that is very public and very open, knew that ahead of time.
I'm also not huge on the way this film compares hecklers to critics. First off, comparing film/media critics to some random, ignorant scrub yelling insults to a performing act is a facile, invalid point. One party professionally evaluates art and the meanings it could spawn, while the other gives a very immature, childish statement in an act of unnecessary disrespect. They're incomparable, except in the regard that they could potentially make the party at hand feel bad about themselves, which is not my personal goal when writing/publishing a review. When I give a poor review to a film, I give it to the film and not to those involved. I didn't think I needed to attach a disclaimer like this when I began writing.
Chunks of the short feature are devoted to other little ways different men in the business of film respond to criticism. Noted director Uwe Boll staged a boxing match between him and his critics, which I honestly can't believe. Unique it is, but if someone didn't like your film, what will make them like it if you beat them bloody in a ring, and what does that say about your acceptance of dissent? Eli Roth states the "death of film" are focus groups, little screenings of the first/second/third cuts of films where a private audience (usually made up of the film's target demographic) is invited to watch the film and voice what they like and didn't like. Instead of writing it off as a way for more people to bitch and moan about what they didn't like, filmmakers should think of these groups as ways to not only improve on their own work but connect with their demographic in a stronger way.
While it appears my criticism with Heckler's negative portrait of film critics runs a mile deep, this is nonetheless an interesting documentary, that serves as much more than Kennedy's therapeutic method of coping with sour critics/public. I just kind of wish any of the talents involved would've recognized that their attitude towards critics comes off as bitter and angry, when it's almost cemented in the job description for an actor/comedian. And I'd like to challenge Lewis Black on the fact that when someone's young they do not want to be a critic of any kind. At age five I knew that I wanted to be someone who wrote essays and reviews of films, giving ideas and different views of the medium.
Full, more complete review on http://stevethemovieman.proboards.com