My main problem with Heckler was that, ultimately, it was untruthful.
I had no problem with the first part where it actually dealt with Hecklers themselves. I've seen some of best known Stand Ups in the world on stage and have a huge respect for them, it must take real courage to do what they do. There is a direct relationship between the audience and the artist for that hour, or however long the show is, and you respect that relationship by listening to what he/she has to say and not interrupting. If you don't like what they say you're free to leave.
BUT....
What really got my back up was when it turned to films. Hecklers ARE NOT the same as critics! Hecklers interrupt a live show and ruin it for other people, critics are people who give their opinion of something after it has been made. Those opinions may be crude or offensive, but they do not spoil it for other people.
Yet, for me, even that was not the most untruthful part. Unlike live shows there is no relationship between the audience and the artist on screen, despite what some people may like to believe, and despite what this film tries to make you believe. The REAL relationship in all films is between the company or corporation who fund them and us the audience, or rather us the consumers. After watching Heckler I was left with the impression that most of the artists would prefer it if we all just keep our mouths shut because we don't fully understand the artistic process. That may well be true but what we do understand, only too well, is we hand over our money for cinema tickets, DVD's or rentals, and when presented with two hours of utter trash we feel ripped off. What Heckler fails to understand is that most films are a product, and if that product doesn't meet with some people expectations (fairly or unfairly) they have a right to complain. We can complain about other products, cars, washing machines, TV's,and not many of us understand the process by which they're made either, so why not complain about films? And the fact that an "artist" spent years pouring his heart and soul into making one film does not make it immune from criticism. Engineers do the same when they design a new car yet their product is scrutinised. Now, unlike cars, there may not be any important aspects (i.e safety etc) to consider when it comes to films, but they're still products and consumers still have the right to complain about that product.
Saying all of that Heckler did make a very valid point that there are right and wrong ways to criticise. I don't agree with all the personal abuse that Kennedy recieved, though i'm sure he doesn't really take it seriously. Still it can't be very nice to know that everyday, somewhere, you're being insulted and laughed at. But complaining about people who just say "your movie sucks" is not valid, they may be inarticulate morons with the I.Q. of a tomato, but they're still entitled to say it. And it certainly doesn't give Uwe Boll the right to beat the hell out of four guys in a boxing ring under any circumstances, regardless of what they said.
In fact Uwe Boll should come on this site and look at the ratings people have given his movies. I looked them up and out of 23 movies he directed only 2 have scored over 5.0, and most are under 4.0. I haven't watched any of his movies so I don't know whether they just don't have a wide appeal, or if they're just poor. Whatever the reason Mr Boll it would seem most people don't like your films....get over it! And that goes for Rob Zombie too, with the exception of Grindhouse, it would seem people aren't too fussed about yours either. I really did get the impression there was a sense of blaming the audience for their bad reviews, forgetting that it wasn't us who made them. And I also got the impression that somehow some of these "artists" thought they were better than us and we just don't understand them.
If you made it this far (well done!) you probably have the impression that I didn't like Heckler. But actually I quite liked it. It was entertaining and funny and I definitely think it made some good points regarding the some of the professional film critics. I agree that too many (but certainly not all) seem to concentrate far too much on attack, rather than critique. I said that it was untruthful, maybe a bit harsh, maybe not. Another way to describe it would be misguided. It had alot of valid points about abuse but regardless of the dictionary term for Heckler I can't agree with that some of the idiots on the internet are truly hecklers, i think they are what they are, idiots (does that now include me?). And even if you accept the literal meaning then the film did itself few favours because even it didn't seem to know the point where criticism becomes heckling. It all seemed muddled and confused, it made plenty of good points but also plenty of bad ones too. For me it was the bad points that stuck in my memory.
reply
share