Heckler

A few years ago I wrote that the infamous Monkees' movie "Head" was an accidental masterpiece. Rereading that review recently, I realized that many people may have thought I was writing sarcastically, ironically. I was not. "Head" IS a masterpiece of cinema, even though it undoubtedly was not what the Monkees or the filmmakers intended, it is just so brilliantly put together that whatever the motivations, a real document of the '60s had been produced.

"Heckler," similarly, is a film that reaches way beyond its initial intentions. Filmed 'on the sly' (i.e., whenever they could arrange an interview) over a three year period, the film evolved from a 'behind-the-scenes' tour documentary into a study into the relationship between comics and their hecklers, into an essay on the problematic relationship between performing artists and their critics generally (especially those on the internet, such as at IMDb). This evolution marks its 'accidental' character - the filmmakers are not trying for depth, they find it because it is there, and demands attention.

Some of this movie is funny, even hilarious, some even disturbing. As it should be. The film asks why we want to voice opinions of work that is solely intended to entertain us. Some of the answer to that is not pleasant to confront. Are we jealous of the more successful? Yet even the equally successful seem to have their opinions - why7 The film leaves the question with us, preferring to resolve the problem of how artists (of various genres) should deal with it (learn from it, burn it, move on).

I learned a lot from this movie. The cinematography is - well, anyone who could hold a camera and hit the record button did so. The editing is wonderful. There's no intrusive commentary except a handful of title cards. The people are real and captured in as real a manner as the present day (post 'reality TV) allows. It's just a brilliantly put together venture, however it came about.

My favorite part? - and I think the decisive moment of the film - Andrew Dice Clay's confrontation with a worm of a CNN commentator who had not the slightest idea what he was talking about, and then moved on to a story about Art Carney! You won't learn a lot about the mysteries of the universe, but you may learn something about yourself.

(2 BTW notes - (1. The dance towards the end is fascinating. 2. The 'bonus' material on the DVD is uniformly excellent.)

this film has several problems but not one related to what the film was supposed to be about. Heckler starts great and for about 30 minutes I really enjoyed the film. then, a change of subject happens. This film should be called something else because it is not about hecklers.

I'll try to keep it simple and positive - what I've liked; first 30 minutes. situations in several stand up comedy acts where we see how professional comedians deal with hecklers. not only that, it is also nice to hear their opinions on the subject.

the rest of the film? well, I don't even know what to say. it completely changes the subject. it is not about hecklers, it is about a plague called offensive film 'critics' (which I acknowledge that it is a serious plague). however I thought I was going to watch a film about hecklers (you know, with the title and all) and instead I get this guy feeling emotional about how these guys on the internet and newspapers treat his work.

I mean, it is nice to see him confronting some of these 'critics' and you kind of wish that this stuff could be done more times, but after a while it is just boring. (is this a criticism? can I write this? because you know, that's what I felt. it was boring. no personal attacks to the director or any cheap slander. I m talking about the rest of the film. Boring. )

sorry, it was a bit painful after the half time.

In this documentary, Jamie Kennedy says that movie critics should make a point of giving "constructive criticism," that is, instead of just saying that a movie sucked, say why it was bad and what could have been done to make it better. This is one of the parts that I agree with, so I'll try to do that here.

The first 20 minutes or so were exactly what the DVD cover and title claim to be- a documentary about how stand-up comedians deal with hecklers. Listening to the comedians' war stories and methods of dealing with hecklers is hilarious and a fascinating subject.

But then the movie veers off course when Kennedy makes a ham-fisted comparison equating movie critics to hecklers. Plenty of others here have explained why that's a bad comparison, so I don't need to explain why again.

From that point on, it feels like the movie is nothing but JK whining that no one liked Son of the Mask. I'm a bit bitter about the bait-and-switch done here. He shows us a brief clip of SotM that's supposed to convince us that the whole thing is funny, and assumes that this gets us 100% on board with his belief that everyone who criticized it is totally wrong and/or mean-spirited. And EVERYONE he finds either didn't watch it or didn't like it. He mopes around between sadness and anger, never once stopping to consider that just maybe Son of the Mask really was a bad film.

In fact, he seems to be really stuck on the idea that there is no such thing as a bad film whatsoever. Kennedy argues that because every opinion on a movie is just an opinion, not a fact. However, most people would agree that if a film is universally hated by both professional critics and the viewing public, tanks at the box office, and gets singled out by Rotten Tomatoes as one of the 100 worst films of the decade, as Son of the Mask was, then it's a pretty safe bet to call it a bad movie. There is such a thing as a bad film.

He has some valid points about how mean-spirited and personal-level criticisms of films are excessively cruel, but these points seem to get lost in the mess of the post-heckler part of the movie. It's unfocused and has a lot of logical leaps. One minute all movie critics are scum, the next minute Roger Ebert is a great and well-respected exception (even though he's just as famous for tearing into truly bad films as writing great reviews), the next we see some kid saying that Ebert is an idiot and an out-of-context clip that makes Beyond the Valley of the Dolls look really bad, completely missing the point that that film was intentionally schlocky. One minute a professional movie critic is a valid career with a legitimate purpose, the next they're all scum again. One minute he's accepting of the idea of constructive criticism that doesn't attack on a personal level, the next 25 minutes, no one should ever have a negative opinion about anything.

We're treated to a parade of famous flop-makers that we're supposed to feel sympathy for, but don't, because we're still not convinced that there's no such thing as a bad movie. Bringing in people involved with incredibly bad movies like Joel Schumaker, Carrot Top, and Uwe Boll to argue your point only further cements the idea that your movie was bad and that you're just being bitter about everyone's natural reaction to it.

However, I thought that the part about how the Web has made everyone into an elitist critic with a tendency to hate everything was interesting ("0 out of 4 waffles?"). I find people who come to IMDb, give a good-but-not-great movie 0/10 stars and a review of "THIS WUZ The WURST MUVEE EVER LOLz!" to be some of the biggest morons on the planet, and their opinions to be about as worthless as he says they are. JK also has an interesting idea where he confronts some of his harshest, most personal-level critics to see if they'll say the same things to his face. But his reaction to one of those is so terribly immature and unfunny (and I'm no prude) that it ruins the whole exercise.

In conclusion, I think that Kennedy made this film too soon. His emotions about everyone's reaction to Son of the Mask were still too raw, and that got in the way of his ability to make a coherent documentary. Had he made it two or three years later, he probably would have been thinking clearly enough to leave out some of the moments that I'm sure felt gratifying to him, but just alienated his audience, like his contradictory opinions on Ebert or his treatment of the last critic he met in person.

The irony isn't lost on me that I am reviewing a documentary that specifically targets critics. I don't review much, but I felt I had something to say about this piece.

Now, I find Jamie Kennedy funny. Not hysterical, but I like him in films like Scream and even his cameos in Harold and Kumar and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Hell I even get a chuckle watching some of his movies when I catch them on TV. I wouldn't mind seeing his stand up act. I certainly wouldn't heckle him.

However, this movie seems to be spreading the message that nothing is bad to everyone, and shame on us if we so choose to tell someone we didn't like their movie. I haven't seen Son of the Mask, but from what I can tell, it was truly an amazingly horrible film. What this film won't face up to is that, while there are many underrated movies out there, some things, in fact, ARE just plain bad.

But I'm getting off track, as this movie seems to. It is, of course, called "Heckler" and the first half of it covers the art of heckling and the response stand up comics have to it very well. I loved hearing the stories of every comedians worst heckler. I loved the different responses they thought to give and their thought process behind it. After all, nobody likes a heckler. You want to sit down and watch a show, what you don't want is some obnoxious person interrupting to contribute their own thoughts or lack there of.

But about half way into the movie it diverts from heckling into reviewing. As if to say harsh reviews are equal to heckling. It bashes movie critics as if they are all stupid elitists that have nothing better to do than poo-poo on the film you just made. And you know, I can see their point, especially in the harsh and unwarranted personal attacks critics put out there. However, critiquing films is not equal to heckling. Heckling interrupts the show, it ruins everyone's experience of it, it's not criticizing anything it's just being an ass.

The most ridiculous part probably comes during the Carrot Top interview. This is when Jamie Kennedy sits across from Carrot Top and seriously asks him why people find him to be an easy target. Carrot Top. I'm sorry, but when you look as ridiculous as Carrot Top when he preforms his routine, why not just design your own prop bulls eye?

You see what this film doesn't show is people accepting criticism for what they put out. They have Uwe Boll fighting his critics as if by fighting them that's going to make him a better filmmaker. You have Jamie defending Son of the Mask. You know what's better than making a documentary that goes after people that didn't like your movie? How about laughing at yourself and how bad your film really was? I mean appreciate all the people who liked it, but don't be so sad when someone posts a bad review of you online. That's not heckling.

I only wish this movie would've spent more time with stand up and less time asking why people are rude online. I mean overall it's a pretty good doc, the parts about heckling are great, the focus group stuff was interesting too and I wish they had gone more into that, but it gets a little too sensitive at times defending actors and directors for stuff that is really just plain bad, and I only wish they would admit that.

I have never written a film review here before, but Heckler actually compelled me to do so. One thing I gleaned from the movie was an appeal to critics: Don't be mean for the sake of being mean. Instead, make the criticism constructive. I aim to do that here.

I will start by saying I really enjoyed hearing the perspective of all the performers and artists on the subject of heckling and criticism. Since the interview subjects are funny and talented people, the resulting string of talking heads is actually quite entertaining. As for the subject matter, I have always been sympathetic towards comedians who have to endure hecklers while on stage, but this movie really hit the point home. Also interesting was the footage of actual heckling incidents, and the sometimes shocking reactions from the performer.

Jamie Kennedy, the de facto host of the movie, was good for the most part, but some sequences were more effective than others. He was at his best when his humor was self-deprecating. When Jamie confronted a critic, read their review out loud, and then sat there with a sort of deflated, forlorn look on his face as the critic continued to insult him, that was good stuff. But when he went on the attack, such as insulting one guy's babysitting job, or asking a critic about his sex life, he was turning into the very mean-spirited critic that he had been admonishing. If he instead became the better person, and turned the other cheek, he would have been a more sympathetic (and funnier) character. Still, his performance overall was good.

As for the treatment of film criticism, I felt like there needed to be more balance. There should have been some acknowledgment that film critics provide a valuable source of consumer information. When I go to see a movie, I have to make a 1/2 hour to 1 hour drive, sometimes pay for parking, pay $10 or more admission, and devote 2 hours of my life to watching it. Before doing so, I would like to know if it is worth the money, time, and effort. Film reviews are an essential tool in making this determination. I am a consumer, and a movie is a product I am purchasing. How is it any different from reading reviews for any other product before purchasing it? Why are car reviewers not berated for what they do? How about Consumer Reports, which reviews just about any product you can think of? As for internet reviewers, how about the customer reviews on amazon.com, or rei.com, or any major internet retail site? They may not be professional reviewers, but their opinions can be meaningful in large numbers. When 100 owners give something a good (or bad) review, that is useful information if I am thinking of purchasing that product. I think it is also a false argument to suggest that film critics lack credibility because most of them have never made a film themselves. Back to the car reviewer analogy, I bet most of them have never manufactured cars, but they have driven enough of them to separate a finely tuned machine from a lemon.

So, while I enjoyed Heckler overall, I couldn't help but leave a little disappointed knowing it could have been much better if it was made with a little less hostility and a little more thoughtfulness. With this approach, I think these filmmakers could turn a good movie into a great one.