Anne Thompson's post is a load of crap. I like Ignatiy's response in the comments section:
"Since I'm the, er, "smug gap-toothed upstart" mentioned above, I thought I'd say my piece. I don’t have any problem with being called "smug" (though I'd like think that I'm not) or an "upstart;" "gap-toothed" is a bit of an exaggeration (paired with "smug," it also suggests a bit of an unusual anti-gap-toothed bias). I don't have a problem with someone saying that they don't like the show, or that they don't agree with my work as a critic (as a matter of fact, someone tells me the latter every week in front of a national audience). Obviously I happen to think that we make a damn good show, but if someone doesn't like it, that's okay. Critics are nothing if they can't handle criticism. You can all me "inexperienced," a know-nothing, whatever all you want; that's fine (though I'd like to point out that my presence on this show points to something, as I clearly wasn't hired for my easygoing on-screen demeanor, vast TV experience or instant rapport with Christy).What I do take issue with, though, is the condescending attitude of the above post, specifically toward Christy. Christy's not some wee dainty lass whom I bully on a weekly basis; she's *beep* ferocious, and, I'm sad to say, rips me a new one more often than I'd like to admit (I'd hate be in a fistfight with her, since I know she'd go straight for eye-gouge). As for the "interruptions" -- it’s a TV show, and TV shows are edited for time, meaning we edit dead space out of every discussion. Sure, it means it often sounds like we're cutting each other off when in reality there’s a few seconds of silence, but it also means that pretty much everything that was mentioned in the discussion gets on the air without the show running over. If I was the sort of person who psychoanalyzed blogposts, I'd be inclined to agree with the commenter below that you’re projecting some sort of bias on the relationship between Christy and myself. Sure, you might not like our chemistry because it's not Siskel & Ebert's chemistry. Siskel & Ebert were two guys who held fundamentally similar opinions on cinema -- what it was supposed to be, how it was supposed to work -- and criticism, but who, due particular aspects of their personalities and ideals, were inclined to disagree with each other. Christy and I are two people with nothing in common in terms of how we approach films or the practice of film criticism, but are able to have a conversation about it. That's our version of the show in a nutshell -- a sort of controlled meeting of two wildly different worldviews. Even when we agree on how much we like a film, we usually do it for completely different reasons (see, for example, either of our J. EDGAR reviews); that's the essence of our chemistry, and of this show. But, ultimately, the fact that you don't like the two of us as hosts -- again, you're entitled to your opinion -- has got zilch to do with why this show is currently going on hiatus. Funding takes time; no one in their right mind is going to just dump money on your lap without looking through a lot of contracts, etc. Fact of the matter is, there was just no way we could be sure we’d have everything straightened out with an underwriter by the time season renewal came around; the hiatus allows us to take the amount of time that's needed."
reply
share