Open Forum Friday: Does a Director Have the Right to Prevent a Critic from Seeing his Movie?

Posted by on March 12th, 2010   Filed under: Open Forum Friday

openforumbaumbach

New York Press writer Armond White has made a name for himself over the years as a film critic whose opinion consistently runs against the grain. He was one of the few critics to give negative reviews to such movies as Up, Precious, and District 9, meanwhile he heaped praise on Norbit, Dance Flick and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. This week he has been at the center of some controversy once again, as he was apparently uninvited from a press screening of Noah Baumbach’s new film Greenberg, under orders from Baumbach, producer Scott Rudin, and their publicist. White was incensed and called for other critics to boycott the film, referring to the act as “infringing upon my First Amendment rights as a journalist”. But was White banned because of his propensity for negative reviews, or is there more to the story?

It turns out that White had some harsh words for Baumbach’s previous films The Squid and the Whale and Margot at the Wedding calling them “two of the decade’s most repellent movies”, and in an earlier review even went so far as to imply that Baumbach’s mother should have had an abortion. (Classy.) White apparently has a long-standing feud with Baumbach’s mother, former Village Voice writer Georgia Brown, who he once accused of being racist. Baumbach’s publicist decided that White shouldn’t be among the first group of critics to see the film, but that they would invite him to another screening later in the week. So is anyone in the wrong here?

On the one hand, critics need to be given access to movies so that they can do their jobs. On the other hand, critics are also expected to remain professional and somewhat objective, and not carry a grudge against a filmmaker. Studios are perfectly within their rights to hold back certain movies from critics when they know that they will probably be eviscerated anyway. Is this really any different? Does it hurt critics or moviegoers if reviewers are not given full access to every movie? Were the producers of Greenberg right to ban White based on his history? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.



  • To Hell with Armond White. Seriously. Based on this history, it sounds like he would give his movies a negative review whether he felt them good or bad, so I have no problem with cutting him out of the screening. You mess with my mother, you don’t get to see my movie.

  • I hope nobody sides with Armond White, as he makes Reed’s reviews look like Roger Ebert’s.

  • KeithTalent

    White’s a freaking douche, he should be banned from attending movies all together. Take out his eyes or something.

  • I honestly think White is undergoing some sort of mental collapse. He used to be reasonable, but is now increasingly shrill and hysterical.
    I had thought it might be just him getting off on the contrarian role he’s carved out for himself, but lately it’s become clear he’s lost his fricken mind.

    Not joking, this guy might need help.

  • Ian

    I hate to toe the Liberal/tarian line here but okay. This sounds like a party so they are free to not invite the guy. But in the end the guy will see the movie and his opinion on it is worth as much as the public wants to give it. Isn’t there no such thing as bad press?

  • I really wanna see Greenberg by the way..

  • Nate

    I think uninviting him from the press screening gives White’s inevitable negative review more exposure when it finally comes out. I don’t know anyone who reads his reviews as anything more than, “let’s see what the crazy guy has to say about this one.” I think they should have just let him review it regularly and let his millions of detractors take care of the rest.

  • Travis

    This goes beyond simply censoring someone who consistently gives bad reviews. He’s obviously got a personal beef and has made his reviews unprofessional because of it. If he wants to rant like a WWE announcer, then he shouldn’t expect to be treated like a serious journalist.

    Free speech does not mean you get to act like an asshole with no consequences.

  • xego

    I really don’t know how it is that studios determine who gets access and who doesn’t? I am sure that there are plenty of reviewers left out. Anyone can write a review, even a shameless self-promoter like White, so I don’t think his First Amendment argument holds any water at all. When it comes to to advance screenings for critics and producers or studios controlling tightly controlling access then it is a bad sign for the integrity of the review process in general; however reviewers are uniquely situated with a public platform to deal with that should it become an issue. I am sure reviewers don’t want have to pass a litmus test like the White House Press Corps to gain access to film screenings.

  • Slix

    I’m ok with excluding him. I suppose the issue is more about where you draw the line. At what point down the line does a person just become yet another hack writer from some publication? With the growth of the interwebs, there are a lot more people in the criticing business and not all of them as heady as the Film Junk crew (word). As it stands a person can exclude who they want and take their chances. It’s a lot different if Ebert says you wouldn’t let him in then some shmuck with a grudge.

  • Captain N

    He basically said this as well:
    “I never met either of them. It’s not personal. I just don’t like their movies.”

    So it’s obvious he was going into the film trying not to enjoy it. If White really wants to review the film, he can pay to go see it.

  • swarez

    This act won’t prevent him from seeing the film. Aside from getting him good press he can then pay for a ticket himself, which he will then be paid back from the company he’s writing for, and give the review he wants. Which will probably be even more negative than he would otherwise have given.

    Sure, the studio can choose who they invite to a press screening but they can’t prevent a critic from seeing a film, no matter how hard they try.

  • Nick Robertson

    He really is a fucking nut bar. I’d cut him out of my screening also, just because he’s a dick head – we don’t tolerate that shit in Australia (except for Mr Rudd)
    Fuck him.

  • Travis

    I don’t see how barring him will lead to a worse review…he already said Baumbach’s mother should have had him aborted in a previous review. How much lower can he go?

  • Brendan

    I don’t have a problem with it. Greenburg isn’t being denied any constitutional rights as a journalist. Actually, I don’t know if a movie reviewer is even entitled to the same rights as a journalist, since their job is to give their opinion rather than just report facts. But he still has the right to say or write anything he wants. Baumbach and the studio have the right to allow any journalists they want into their press screening. They do face the possibility of appearing biased when they exclude someone with the proper credentials and all, but since there is obviously a well documented history of improper behavior on Greenburg’s part, I doubt there will be much uproar about it (except by Greenburg, who has already marginalized himself).

  • Hey Brandan, Greenberg is the movie, Armond White is the reviewer. White is funny in his opinions, but overall a decent writer. I enjoy reading his stuff. I see no problem with a contrarian opinion on the successes and failures on popular cinema, but lately it is true that he is sort of a self-parody as he gets more headlines for shouting above the noise (so to speak)

  • Brendan

    Ah, thanks Kurt. I actually knew that, just inadvertently swapped them when I wrote it.

  • Jason_Miami

    His reviews have almost always been opposite to most critics but seem to be in line with mainstream (idiot) moviegoers so his opinion is worth something. But it’s a private press screening and they can invite and not invite anyone they want. Many critics aren’t invited to those screenings all the time. As others have said, it’s not like he’ll never see the movie. It will be released at the box office and he can see it then with everyone else.

    From everything I’ve heard about this guy he seems like a total douche anyway, completely undeserving any rights as a serious critic. If he wanted to be taken seriously and not be banned then maybe he shouldn’t have made unjust personal attacks against the director and his mother. Sounds like a serious conflict of interest if he has some sort of vendetta against her and his review shouldn’t be taken seriously anyway. If you want to be treated like a professional then act like one, douche.

    Perhaps if he was more reputable then people would be more outraged but I think any fan of movies doesn’t care about this guy. I’m a purist for freedom of the press but people like him exploit that freedom to spout hate and seemingly purposely go contrary to the mainstream for press.

  • J.G.

    Unfriended. Snap! I don’t think he’s a good critic. He’s basically a troll that gets paid to see movies. Anyone who enjoyed Norbit should be frequently uninvited from advanced movie screenings.