Friday Filler: Deep Thoughts with Jeff Wells
By Craig Kennedy - April 18th, 2008; 4:04 pm
It’s hard to feel interested about Tarsem Singh’s The Fall given its long history of shooting going back to ‘04 or thereabouts. I don’t trust films that take forever to be made, and it’s hard to be interested in a film that showed at Toronto almost two years ago and generated no buzz.
Am I the only one who thinks the truisms Jeff Wells applies to films in an attempt to pre-determine whether they’re going to be any good or not are bankrupt and depressing?
Also, cancel your plans for Cannes ‘08. In light of reports that Soderbergh won’t be showing his Che Guevara films, Wells declares the festival is “going to be somewhere between passable and a ho-hummer.” I think it’s safe to predict Wells’ Cannes coverage will be somewhere between passable and his coverage of Sundance ‘08.
Filed under: Miscellaneous
Related Posts: - In the Pipeline: American Teen
- 700 Miles from Sundance
- To Cannes or Not to Cannes?
- ‘W.’ Unleashed
- Voynar Exits Cinematical
Heh heh…reading the tea leaves with Brian Setzer, er Jeff Wells.
the most baffling thing about Hollywood Elsewhere are the quotes on the front page by all those filmmakers. I mean, complimenting Wells for “honesty”, for “telling it like it is”, for “writing from the heart”. What? I like a lot of those people, but do they actually read his site?
I agree, Ari, about those quotes from certain filmmakers. Admittedly, I haven’t been to H-E in a long time now and my blood pressure has consequently gone down as a result.
Remember–last year Wells dismissed 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, the Palm d’Or winner, without seeing it, as “a Romanian abortion movie.” Finally seeing the darned thing, he became one of its greatest champions, and declared a holy war on AMPAS on its behalf.
This year’s Cannes line-up looks just about as strong as usual to me even if Americans are not so well represented, aside from the non-competition Indiana Jones and the Kingdom and the Crystal Skull and the in-competition Synecdoche, New York.
(ADDED: Looking at Synecdoche, New York over at IMDB, it would appear Charlie Kauffman is interested in making a movie with one of the greatest ensembles of actresses ever. Michelle Williams, Catherine Keener, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Emily Watson, Samantha Morton, Dianne Wiest and Hope Davis. Add Philip Seymour Hoffman on top of this and… Wow!)
I don’t care what Oily Wells thinks about anything. Like self-styled elder statesman of film blogging David Poland the scant value he offers is as a provocateur. Reactions to their attention seeking or esoteric pronouncements sometimes generate genuinely interesting and thoughtful discussions. But as you regularly demonstrate Craig, great discussions can also be stimulated by blogging unencumbered with a sense of self-importance.
Wells is in the business of having opinions - any opinions - and having them quickly, because his whole business model is based on traffic and generating hits and controversy, unlike Poland who collects stories on his main page and actually does a good job with business news and statistics and so on. Wells, on the other hand, constantly needs to be justifying his existence, to the extent of inventing stories where he can’t find anything else.
For me, Wells’ interest has less to do with information than with entertainment value. He stirs up shit. As someone whose interest extends to all nationalities of cinema, I’m sometimes amused by how little depth his discussions of non-Hollywood film can have.
Just look at this year’s Cannes coverage. The Variety piece mentions new films by the Dardenne brothers, Philippe Garrel, Arnaud Desplechin, and Nuri Bilge Ceylan, and all Wells can do is bitch about how they won’t be showing two Soderbergh movies that’ll be out by the end of the year anyway. Sorry, that’s just narrow-minded.
In other news, someone recommend something already:
http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/screengrab/archive/2008/04/18/introducing-reviews-by-request.aspx
yeah, only a crap director like Orson Welles, Terry Gilliam or Terrence Malick would take more than 2 years to finish a movie. Sounds like slow-poke Tarsem Singh is headed straight for the Criterion Collection.
However, if anybody’s an expert on “ho hummers” at film festivals, I’m sure it’s Jeff Wells.
Paul C., you just articulated what I was trying to get at with regards to Wells. His interest in cinema beyond Hollywood seems remarkably meager. This year’s Cannes line-up has me fairly excited. The Dardenne brothers and Desplechin just for starters. Thanks for the link as well.
Ryan, I’ve always been amused by Wells’ apparent disdain for films that take a long time to be made by their director… despite often saying that he believes Kubrick to be sacrosanct. I think it’s a good thing for Wells that the only Kubrick film to be made in the era of the Internet was Eyes Wide Shut.
Jeff, Poland is at his best when discussing the industry but for me even this area of analysis is too often overtaken by his personality quirks and sometimes torturous logic. It’s to his credit that he seeks to present statistics relevant to discussion, but as someone with well developed skills in this area I’ve noticed that like most journalists he is prone to draw unsubstantiated conclusions from them. I find the investigative and analytical quality of much industry blogging poor.
Yes, I completely agree with you, he often is hampered by the chip on his shoulder and his superiority complex.
Alexander~~
I can hear it now: “Who takes over a year to shoot a Stephen Frickin’ King movie?”
Can I just say that Jeff Wells is pretty much my favorite blogger? I love Hollywood-Elsewhere and visit several times a day. I don’t always agree with him and sometimes his opinions can be outlandish, but come on, aren’t we all walking contradictions to some degree? We all hold contradicting opinions that can’t necessarily be explained, but it’s how we feel, and we don’t hold everything to the same standards. It’s part of being human. I hate seeing people pile on Jeff just for having strong opinions and not being afraid to voice them.
Jeff is a blogging gold standard, and whether you agree with him or not, he does not deserve the treatment he gets from anonymous douchebags who attack him in his comments section.
I kind of think he does. It’s not that he has strong opinions, it’s that he has forced, poorly-motivated strong opinions that he expresses in a bullying manner.
Ahaha, Paul, so true. Or: “We all know the source material is minor Thackeray. Yet it somehow requires over 300 shooting days? Something smells fishy. Not to mention I adamantly detest that haircut of Ryan O’Neal’s. I’m getting a bad feeling about this one. It certainly could be passable. Maybe Barry Lyndon just might be mezzo-mezzo. It depends on how well-carved it is.”
(The “well-carved” comes from my one-on-one conversation with Wells outside the Castro right after seeing There Will Be Blood in early November, heh.)
I saw this Russell Crowe-like big lug outside The Castro that night conversing with a shadowy figure.
What *is* the source of those fawning banner-quotes of his? I’m sure he weaseled ‘em out of somewhere, but posting them with no attribution?
Wells either hits the nail on the head, or completely rubs me the wrong way, depending on the day and the topic. The problem is, he usually posts about subjects that interest me, so I keep going back.
But the whole “Yuma” weirdness and his reaction to it soured me. I’ve never had an exchange with him that wasn’t kind of offensive or jerky, and I’ve heard the same from a few others.
“he does not deserve the treatment he gets from anonymous douchebags who attack him in his comments section.”
The thing is that he invites them thru irrational attacks. One poster accidently posts something twice and Wells pops up to insult him. It’s genuine sociopathic behavior. And to insult your readers after asking for donations is stunning. Like a business, blogs work from the top down. Poland isn’t that cantankerous and there’s far less vitrol on his site. CJ doesn’t insult and he gets love. It’s a pretty obvious equation.
Yes, his recent rants about “this is a party I am hosting and you are a guest and should act accordingly” completely ignores the fact that the guests are paying for the booze, food and electricity. If it’s a party it’s a rent party.
It’s a minor thing, but I haven’t posted there since that little snipe and probably won’t again. I’m all for civility and get tired of douchebaggery, but it’s boring commiserating with someone who has absolutely no sense of humor about themselves.
Honestly, I’ve visited his blog less and less lately. It’s not just how short-fused he gets- it’s how strident he’s become about his political affiliations.
That said, I’ll still stop by on occasion to skim what he’s been writing about lately. I always make sure to read him when he’s talking about older movies, in particular guy-movies from the sixties and seventies. I purchased a dub of THE FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE based on his repeated recommendations, and it was well worth it.
His comment about behavior at a party was absolutely spot-on. There’s absolutely no excuse for the way people behave in the comments section. You can disagree without being so hateful and disrespectful.
Paul “For me, Wells’ interest has less to do with information than with entertainment value. He stirs up shit.” This is why I call him the AM Talk Radio Host of Film Blogging. All smoke, little fire. Controversy over enlightenment.
Matthew. About a year ago I would’ve agreed with you 100%. I used to check in obsessively and comment frequently. Sometimes rudely, more often not. But I’ve gotten tired of his attitude. He comes at almost everything from the negative. Something is horrible until proven otherwise. At first I thought he was just trying to be an interesting/controversial blogger, but I’ve come to believe that he has soul cancer. And yes, he totally asks for the rude treatment in the comments section. Half of his posts are calculated for that kind of reaction.
I’ve never been a frequent reader of Well’s blog because I grew a distinct distaste for his brand of “film criticism” back when he was the lowly reviewer over at Kevin Smith’s old site. Well’s style of reviewing was to hurl large bombs at anything he could in order to anger readers and encourage responses. He wasn’t being the Devil’s advocate or attempting to spur an honest discussion, he was simply pulling the old AICN talkbacker trick of whining about something to spur a flaming rant that would encourage a higher click count. It’s the same general disdain for the love of film and a desperate need to encourage his business model that drives Hollywood Elsewhere. I honestly don’t have time for it, even if I respect how prolific his blogging is (even though I don’t grasp the popularity of it).
If that sort of thing appeals to you, great. For me, I’d rather spend time with saner voices that offer honest opinions, intelligent rants, and passionate love for the art of filmmaking. No need to travel any further than LIC for that.
sartre, I thought I could hear a Kiwi voice in the background as Wells recorded my inner-most special thoughts to be put on his website.
Paul C., I agree that when Wells gets onto a film he actually loves his thoughts are worthwhile. His thoughts on The Friends of Eddie Coyle helped motivate me–as if I need anymore to begin with–to see it at the Castro last month. I’m glad I avoided his spoiling of it, though, which was a pretty big scandal for a little while.
I’ve been reading Wells a long time, back since he was on Movie Poop Shoot, and all I can say is that he’s definitely deteriorating. He used to have insightful stuff to say about movies on a regular basis, and not just incidentally wedged in between posts about Obama vs. Hillary, name-dropping and name-calling. And that’s why I get those gushing posts from filmmakers: those quotes have been there for years, and they date back to the days when Wells was actually relevant. I often didn’t agree with him back then, either, but his provocations seemed less rote and calculated. He was already a narcissist, but not to such an annoying degree.
The single most annoying thing (for me anyway) about Jeff Wells is when he does this:
We all know that (insert highly subjective, elitist thing here).