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

By: J.G.

J.G. — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:30:07 +0000

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.

By: Jason_Miami

Jason_Miami — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:37:36 +0000

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.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:31:09 +0000

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

By: Kurt

Kurt — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:36:48 +0000

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)

By: Brendan

Brendan — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:17:16 +0000

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).

By: Travis

Travis — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 06:14:46 +0000

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?

By: Nick Robertson

Nick Robertson — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 05:48:23 +0000

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.

By: swarez

swarez — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 04:54:23 +0000

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.

By: Captain N

Captain N — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 04:51:01 +0000

He basically said this as well:
â€œI never met either of them. Itâ€™s not personal. I just donâ€™t like their movies.â€

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.

By: Slix

Slix — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:00:38 +0000

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.

By: xego

xego — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:47:51 +0000

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.

By: Travis

Travis — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:43:48 +0000

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.