Battle of the Titans

Finally I have something worthwhile to write about. Not that George W. Bush is sexually harrassing other heads of state; not that Israel is pounding the shit out of Lebanon; not that Bill Clinton is illogically coming to the political rescue of the man who pissed all over him during the impeachment crisis; not that Ann Coulter still hasn't managed to find her way to rehab -- no, something really important.

Kevin Smith vs. Joel Siegel. A battle of the titans. Now this is serious shit.

For the uninitiated, I will start with the undisputed facts:

Joel Siegel attended a screening of Kevin Smith's new movie, "Clerks II." That is a fact. Joel Siegel walked out of said screening about forty minutes into the film. This also is a fact. As he was leaving, Siegel was heard to say, "Time to go!" and "This is the first movie I’ve walked out of in 30 fucking years!'"

These facts are not in dispute: they are agreed upon by both sides. What was in dispute was whether Siegel: a) was justified in leaving the movie before it was over, and/or: b) was disruptive and unprofessional in leaving the film in the manner he did.

Kevin Smith in his blog (My Boring Ass Life) takes great delight in pouring scorn on Joel Siegel's style of reviewing -- which is admittedly pretty easy to do. He's a short-take quote-whore TV critic of the Gene Shalit variety, and they can be pretty hard to take on an empty stomach. James Agee he's not -- to put it mildly.

Smith's argument boils down to this: Siegel's conduct was both rude and unprofessional, and showed a lack of moviegoing etiquette.

As Smith puts it:

"Cardinal rule of movie-going: shut your fucking mouth while the movie’s playing. They even ask you to do so in the pre-show run-up to every flick (”Cell phones and pagers off, no talking during the show”). This guy went beyond talking, even; he was making a spectacle of himself as he left. I’ve now spoken to three folks in attendance last night, and all have said that Siegel WANTED everyone to know how disgusted he was, and that he was leaving. If you want to share your displeasure with everyone, that’s fine, dude; just do it AFTER the movie, not during. Some folks were enjoying themselves. I don’t come down to your job and slap the taste out of your mouth for coming up with a line like “‘Shark Tale’ Is a Halibut Good Time”; so don’t fuck with my stuff WHILE IT’S STILL SCREENING. "

And what was Siegel's riposte?

Well, he hasn't exactly written one yet, and as far as I can tell his only public comment was on the Opie and Anthony radio show (a clip of which is posted on Smith's blog), where he sort of pooh-poohs the whole thing as being no big deal. I suppose in the cosmic sense, he may be right.

But it brings up a larger question: does a critic have a right to walk out on a film?

Now, although Kevin Smith claims (in the Opie and Anthony clip, in response to a direct question from Siegel) to have never walked out on a movie, I know I certainly have. "Gandhi" and "Lawrence of Arabia" are only two examples that leap to mind. And I can think of a lot of films, that, had I been forced to attend a screening, I would have been sorely tempted to vacate the premises. Years ago, when I worked at the Quad in Greenwich Village as an usher, they were showing a foreign film called "Le Bal" that several people invariably walked out on at every screening. At one showing a good-looking blonde left the theater after forty minutes, came up to me and, with a wounded look on her face, asked: "Why didn't you warn me?" It was Ellen Barkin.

Siegel claims that walking out on a film, far from being unprofessional, is the ultimate criticism of a given film. He might have a point. But Smith also has a legitimate point that, even if you decide to leave a given film forty minutes into it, you don't have to make a production number out of it and disrupt the experience for all the other people in the theater who might be enjoying what you are so offended by.

Now, while I know that this contretemps doesn't exactly rise to the level of Edmund Wilson and Vladimir Nabokov sniping at each other over the merits (or lack of such) of the latter's translation of Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin," it still has some merit, and there are legitimate claims to be made on both sides. I would like to see Joel Siegel comment on the matter further, because I think his argument needs to be made at greater length and more thoughtfully than it can be made on Opie and Anthony.

One last thing: should you go to see "Clerks II"?

Offhand, using my infallible meter of whether or not one should see a given film, I would say not.

Three reasons:

• It's a sequel to a film he made 12 years ago -- how lame (or desperate) is that?
• It stars Rosario Dawson (always a reason to avoid a given motion picture).
• He didn't have the balls to shoot the sequel in black and white.

That final reason is the deal breaker, if you ask me.

Tom Moran

[Note 7/22: Kevin Smith has put up a faux-"trailer" to "Clerks II" making use of the whole Siegel controversy. You can look at the trailer here:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Kevin-Smith-Confronts-Joel-Siegel-On-The-Air-3019.html

It's probably on YouTube as well, along with a shitload of other "Clerks II" stuff. It's very funny -- and I sincerely doubt that "Clerks II" is equally funny. The cineastes among you will recognize the clip from one of the great silent comedies, Harold Lloyd's "The Kid Brother."

One more reason not to see "Clerks II": He didn't shoot it in Jersey.]