web counter
 

"I Told You Not to Say Anything. You Can't Go In There, Brazenly Flaunt the Rules and Then Think I'm Gonna Share With You."

By Seth Freilich | Posted Under Think Pieces | Comments (132)

pajiba-sundance-ban.jpg

Pajiba’s been banned from Sundance.

Actually, that’s not really accurate, but it’s more entertaining and alluring to put it that way. The more accurate statement is that, for at least one year, Sundance has denied press accreditation to Pajiba’s critics.

Now I’ll explain more in a moment (and buckle up, as this has turned into a rather long piece) but, up front, I should probably let you know that this isn’t going to be a fiery rant. This piece isn’t coming from a place of anger nor is it intended to be a hitpiece against Sundance. Rather than anger, I feel unsettling disappointment because I wanted to be spending the last week freezing my ass off in the Park City press tent (which, as Film School Rejects’ Kate Erbland accurately describes it, is really “a warmish, drippy, cattle pen-like enclosure”), waiting to see some 20-odd movies in five days and going through marathon review-writing sessions. I disagree with Sundance’s decision, but I also understand it. Anyway, you want to know what happened.

Part I — BANNED!

Over the holidays, myself and another Pajiba critic got e-mails telling us we weren’t getting credentials this year because our applications were incomplete. Sure that my application was complete, I sent some e-mails and left some voicemails to see if I could figure out what happened and whether there was any way to fix things. Truthfully, I never expected to hear anything back because I’ve heard that the Sundance media/press people don’t really talk to folks much when it comes to explaining press accreditation decisions.

A few days after Christmas, which I spent in Maine with Dustin and his lovely family, he and I drove down to Boston for an early morning screening of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Towards the end of the movie, my phone started vibrating and I snuck a look to see who was calling, just to make sure it wasn’t some type of emergency with my real world job (god damn lawyers). I saw that the call was coming from Utah and, assuming it was someone from Sundance and not knowing if I’d get another chance to talk, I quickly darted out of the theater.

Which is how I learned that there had been no application error. Rather, after having a lengthy discussion about Pajiba, the Sundance press group had decided that they could not give us credentials. This was explained to me by a woman who we’ll call Wendy (not her real name, obviously). Wendy was surprisingly nice and cordial as she told me that she and her colleagues had decided we couldn’t come play in the snow. Naturally, I asked her why it was we had been denied credentials, and Wendy asked me if I was familiar with a review we ran during last year’s Sundance, Dustin’s review of a flick called The Woman.

And then I understood.

So, The Woman. I’ve never seen the film, but my basic understanding of the flick is that a dude finds a feral woman in the woods and brings her back to his secluded house where he and his family try to civilize her by methods which include, among other things, copious amounts of rape, torture and, at one point, power washing her. I think it then turns into one of those rape-revenge flicks that, in theory, is supposed to be feminist and empowering but, in practice, comes off, at least to some, as exploitative and misogynistic. It’s written and directed by Lucky McKee, a controversial horror film guy who, by all accounts, has also made some very good (or at least interesting) flicks.

Anyway, I remember being in the hotel when Dustin got back from this screening, and our late-night conversation went something like this:

Seth: So, how was it?

Dustin: … … … Fuck that movie.

Seth: So you didn’t like it?

Dustin: Jesus Christ. It wasn’t a movie. It was a two hour abortion. Fuck that movie.

And with that, Dustin hopped on his computer and posted his review of The Woman, one of the shortest reviews Pajiba has ever run.

The title reads: “Here’s Your Movie Poster Blurb, A**hole.”

And when you click through, the review succinctly states: ” ‘Go fuck yourself.’ … Dustin Rowles, Pajiba.com.”

There were quite a few comments to the review, which included many defenders of Lucky McKee (who actually tweeted about the review and may have even commented on it, if I recall correctly). The next day, Dustin reviewed a documentary we both saw, Miss Representation, which is about how the mainstream media depicts women. In his introduction to that review, Dustin explained:

I was exhausted and bleary after The Woman. I had planned to discuss it more fully in the context of this movie, but I was also pissed off enough that I wanted to say something about The Woman before passing out and starting it all over again. I touch upon Lucky McKee’s movies more below.

He then added a link to this piece in his original piece about The Woman.

Finally, a week or so later, after hearing so much about Lucky McKee, Dustin decided to learn more about the director. He watched McKee’s debut film, May (which he loved), and read various interviews with McKee and came away with the conclusion that he had misjudged McKee. As for The Woman, Dustin wrote:

But in light of his own defense of The Woman and, now, having seen McKee’s debut film, the cult hit May, I’m … convinced that McKee’s intention was not to create a misogynistic film, but to use misogyny to demonstrate a point about the men/villains in his film. For me, it doesn’t redeem The Woman, but it does allow for more thoughtful consideration than my knee-jerk, “Go fuck yourself,” reaction

But it was that knee-jerk reaction which got us got us banned (at least for one year) from Sundance.

As Wendy explained it, their media team had a long discussion about the issue, which she said was not about trying to censor negative reviews. (And I believe that, considering some of the other scathing reviews we wrote which they don’t seem to care about, see e.g. the aggrevating HERE and the embarrassing The Ledge.) But they ultimately came to the conclusion that the The Woman review essentially amounted to an ad hominem attack of McKee without any critical thought or substance.

They were aware of the follow-up commentary offered by Dustin in his Miss Representation review (I don’t know if they knew about the follow-up follow-up piece regarding McKee and May as I had actually forgotten about that one), but they felt that they had to look at the posted review of The Woman as it stands on its own (even though it links to the Miss Representation piece). And they ultimately decided that they have to show their filmmakers that the Sundance Institute protects them.

That’s the boiled-down version, because Wendy and I actually talked through all of this for a good ten or fifteen minutes. And again, to Wendy’s and Sundance’s credit, Wendy was very honest and forthcoming about how and why they had reached this decision. In fact, she essentially acknowledged that they normally don’t reach out to folks but that she wanted to call me specifically to explain all of this in light of the fact that Pajiba has generally run an extensive amount of well-thought of coverage and reviews of Sundance films.

But nevertheless, she explained, they didn’t think it would be right or fair to allow us to attend (as press). They have to show the writers and directors and artists that submit films that Sundance has their back, and they felt the way to show this was to deny press credentials to Pajiba for this year’s festival.

Part II — Do Filmmakers Need to Be Protected From Critics?

As I see it, that question is really what this is about. Again, I truly don’t believe that we’re being “censored” because of this one negative review. I think there are two things, instead, at play here.

One is the question I’ve just raised, that of whether filmmakers need to be protected from critics. Sundance appears to believe the answer is yes. As you might gather, I disagree.

When a filmmaker releases her film, I believe she is putting herself out there with her film. Now this isn’t to say that an attack, particularly one that has no relation to the movie or other public comments of the filmmaker, is warranted. But I do believe it means that the kid gloves come off. This is particularly true in the case of someone like McKee, who surely knows he is dabbling in controversial stuff. Even if the view that The Woman is worthless, misogynistic drivel is wrong, even if McKee disagrees with that, he knows some folks will think that. And will vocally express their outrage. Some folks want and welcome that type of controversy but, even if McKee isn’t one who tries to be controversial simply for the sake of being controversial, he chose to put The Woman out there and I do not believe that he is entitled to be protected from the responses that come back to him.

Some might be inclined to say that my position comes from the fact that I’m a critic, so of course I would think this. But that’s not really where this comes from. It comes from the fact that I’ve put my own art “out there” for over 20 years, from plays and musicals, to several bands, from newspaper writing and speech presentations to this here Pajiba. There have been many, many instances when I have received the harshest of criticisms. Criticism often stings, and particularly hurts where one is emotionally tied with what’s been put out there. But I’ve never felt that I needed to be protected from that criticism. Because it was my choice to invite the audience in.

I once performed a sketch on stage which, as a co-writer and co-director, I wholeheartedly believed in. Others in the group did not, and it turns out they were right because my God did this thing bomb. It was cut after the first show, but half-way through what would turn out to be the skit’s only live performance, I had to deliver a controversial line to an audience that we had already lost. There were hisses after my line, and it is the worst I’ve ever felt on stage. (And this is coming from someone who felt the embarrassing laughter of 1,000-odd people after a make-out scene in his tenth-grade performance of Shakespeare’s “Taming of the Shrew” left him sporting a full-on boner.) After the performance, I was told in no uncertain terms that some found my line offensive and thought the skit as a whole was terrible. I still believe it was a good skit. But I get why some found that line offensive, and I understand why an audience might not get it. And I don’t take offense at any of it, because it was my choice to (co)write it, and my choice to step on stage with my fellow performers.

Anybody who performs, who writes, who creates films, who puts some piece of art or work into the world, they’re putting themselves out there with it. And if they want to be protected from what comes next, they shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.

Now I suspect that Sundance’s response to this (and I don’t know for sure, as my conversation with Wendy didn’t fully go down this path) would be that it’s not about protecting McKee from negative criticism, but from unadulterated attacks, and that Dustin’s review is not a valid critical review. That it lacked substance and conveyed no thought and that this is what their filmmakers need to be protected from.

And that, to my mind, is the second thing at play here, namely, that there is a fundamental disagreement as to the “merit” or “value” of a review that simply says “go fuck yourself.” As Dustin himself readily admitted at the time, his first review of The Woman was a “knee-jerk reaction.” But because it’s knee-jerked, short, and vulgar, does that mean it has no critical merit? I don’t think so. What you got was a brief but honest reaction from a movie critic to a film he had observed. You basically got his raw emotion. Dustin was angry and offended and his review made that pretty clear.

Over time, our readers learn the peculiarities and tastes of many of our critics, and that’s particularly true when it comes to Dustin, who’s written so much for this brainchild site of his over the last half-plus decade. And that familiarity with Dustin colors how many read his reviews. So being familiar with Dustin’s work and the fact that he generally tries to give a fair shake to any film that has any redeeming qualities, and particularly to smaller indie films, his brief “go fuck yourself” becomes all the more telling.

I was recently telling the story of Pajiba’s Sundance banning to someone who happens to be a movie producer, and her response was something along the lines of “well, why should Sundance be obligated to give you access if you’re only only going to post a one sentence diatribe?” This is an interesting point, the idea that there are expectations that come with the access we were given and, in the abstract, that’s a completely legitimate point. Of course Sundance doesn’t have to give us credentials, essentially giving us free access to film screenings that other festival-goers pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for. But context matters. Even putting aside the two follow-up pieces Dustin wrote (which I don’t think should be put aside or discarded from the conversation), you have to look at this in context. Hell, take away the context of Dustin’s years of reviews, and just put it in the context of the 31 films we reviewed for that particular festival. Dustin and I both put a lot of time, thought and energy into our reviews, and I don’t think you can say we abused the access we were given or took advantage of it.

This is a point I did raise during my call with Wendy, which she said she understood. In fact, she explained (and as I mentioned above), it was because of the extent and depth of our coverage overall that she called in the first place. But, again, Sundance is coming at this from a different perspective, and there was simply a fundamental disagreement that certainly wasn’t going to be resolved during that phone call.

Part III — The Irony of It All

But here’s the real kicker, in my mind — Sundance needs us more than we need them. This is not to say that Sundance needs us. Of course Sundance doesn’t need Pajiba.

But we don’t need Sundance, either. What I mean is, we really don’t make any money off of Sundance. The reviews we post from Sundance (and just about any other film festival we cover) get minimal traffic, because the average reader is not that interested in reading a review of a film they’ve never heard of which they may never get a chance to see. Because the traffic is minimal, these reviews have no impact on the ad revenue we generate, nor do they serve any promotional merit. At best, they give us some “credibility,” I suppose, and they allow us to have a review already in the gates to re-run should a Sundance film get a later theatrical run or distribution of some form.

So why do we go to Sundance? Because we love it. This year’s trip would have cost me upwards of $3,000 (and burned a week of hard-to-find vacation time from my real job). This is money which was coming entirely out of my own pocket, not out of Pajiba’s nonexistent coffers — while the site would love to pick up the expenses for our critics to go to festivals, that’s just not an option, so every critic travels to these festivals, when we go, on our own dime. And that’s exactly what Sundance does need, people who love film, people who love and promote small, independent films that may otherwise go unseen. As the Sundance mission statement says:

Sundance Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the discovery and development of independent artists and audiences. Through its programs, the Institute seeks to discover, support, and inspire independent film and theatre artists from the United States and around the world, and to introduce audiences to their new work.

Yes, the statement talks about supporting independent film artists, which is what Sundance thinks it is doing by denying us credentials. But it’s also about introducing audiences to these works. And when a movie we’ve seen at a film festival gets distributed later, and when it’s a move we love, we are vocal as hell about it. Last summer, I told everyone I could to go see Attack the Block. And The Guard. And Another Earth. We re-run our reviews and otherwise try to pimp the films on the site. We love good movies and love getting the word out on those Little Films that Could.

A lot of the critics who go to Sundance, a lot of the critics who have been posting reviews over this last week, are the same way. We’re not the only ones, by any means. But every voice helps and, at least for this year, Sundance chose to silence once of those voices.

Part IV — Will Pajiba Cover Sundance Again?

I don’t know. Towards the end of my discussion with Wendy, I asked whether this meant we shouldn’t bother applying for credentials in the future. I was told that we should absolutely submit applications again next year, which carried the implication that this isn’t a lifetime ban but, instead, simply a one-year message by the festival to its filmmakers. Schedules permitting, we will certainly apply next year and, if we’re given credentials, Pajiba will cover Sundance in 2013.

Now when I mentioned to a few folks that I was going to write this piece, they asked whether I was worried that this might give Sundance the impetus to make the temporary ban into a lifetime ban. In fact, Dustin wondered whether, by running this piece “we might have to give up hope of a future credential.” Frankly, I can’t be concerned with that.

First of all, if I didn’t publish this piece solely because I didn’t want to risk pissing Sundance off, that would go against one of the core foundations of Pajiba, which is to publish reviews and pieces without regard for the PR firms and machinery of Hollywood (to our continued financial dissatisfaction and suffering). So that wasn’t really an option. Second, I don’t think that Sundance is petty. From my discussion with Wendy, my impression was that they were very reasoned and thoughtful in coming to this decision. I disagree with the decision, but not with the approach they took to get to that decision. So I don’t think they would decide to disallow us forever solely because of this piece. And if they do, well again, that would be disappointing, but there’s nothing I can do about that.

So anyway, if we’re given credentials, we will definitely cover Sundance again. And if Pajiba winds up banned for life, frankly, you’ll still likely see coverage from future Sundance festivals. Last year was the first year we had press credentials, but not the first year we covered the festival. We’ve done Sundance the same way the schnooks do it, by planning and saving funds and buying tickets or passes, and we would surely do that again. Because, again, we love the shit out of it.

But for this year, like the rest of you, all we know about Sundance is what we’ve read elsewhere. In the meantime, South by Southwest is right around the corner, and Pajiba will once again be on the ground in Austin, getting drunk, getting debaucherous and maybe even writing some reviews.










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← One for the Money Review: In (Slight) Defense of The Rainbow Killer, Katherine Heigl | Man On A Ledge Review: Might As Well Jump →









Comments

For what it's worth, you treat Sundance very fairly in this article.

Posted by: Bert at January 27, 2012 1:20 PM

I think maybe you were bagged because of the perceived flippancy of the first review. Having said that, I'll defend your right do that all day long, as wise-assedness is one of my better qualities.

Also, if it was anyone else posting that review...say for instance that ridiculous man-child Devin Faraci...you probably would have gotten a pass on the whole thing.

Keep doing what you do, and obviously Sundance can go fuck themselves.

Posted by: Barry at January 27, 2012 1:22 PM

"Shit Sandwich."

Been waiting to learn why for a while, thanks for this.

Posted by: George at January 27, 2012 1:22 PM

Dude, AWESOME. Of all the things you could possibly be banned for, that's probably the awesomest.

I mean, look, when you started out talking about press credentials, my initial thought was, "Oooh, did they basically say 'Eh, Pajiba's not a real website'?" But the actual story shows that you're not only a REAL website, but they care what you think.

FWIW, I don't think it's a total asshole move on Sundance's part. It's disappointing, as you say, but not completely outrageous.

Posted by: MM at January 27, 2012 1:25 PM

Hate to say it gentlemen, but I'm not surprised you've been banned for a year. Dustin's single sentence expletive was not a "review" by any stretch of the imagination, not even to those of us who are familiar with his writing style. I can't say that I'm glad to hear it (Attack the Block and Another Earth were two of the best movies I saw this year, and I would not have written them down and sought them out if it hadn't been for your reviews), and hopefully you will be able to attend as press again next year. Because even though you might be a little hot-headed and impulsive (to your own detriment, it would seem), you still write some of the best movie reviews on the entire expansive internet, and you've earned your press credentials even if you don't deserve your press credentials.

Posted by: superasente at January 27, 2012 1:26 PM

There have been many, many instances when I have received the harshest of criticisms. Criticism often stings, and particularly hurts where one is emotionally tied with what’s been put out there. But I’ve never felt that I needed to be protected from that criticism. Because It was my choice to invite the audience in.

Oh how I wish some of the commenters here would get this point. There's nothing worse than seeing a piece receive appropriate (I stress "appropriate") criticism and then seeing a whole bunch of nasty comments directed at the person who posted, like a gang of school yard bullies rushing in to kick the kid who disagreed with the popular guy.

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 27, 2012 1:26 PM

So you're not allowed to go to Sundance as punishment because you wrote a negative review of a modern exploitation film that failed to subvert misogyny for commentary on the genre? And the excuse is that Sundance needs to protect directors? Directors like Lucky McKee who had a field day playing around with the critics who didn't like his film on Twitter? But the fact that Lucky McKee found the response amusing--not threatening (he referenced the Pajiba review a lot on his feed)--can't be counted because his reaction isn't part of the original review?

Man, fuck Sundance.

Posted by: Robert at January 27, 2012 1:31 PM

1. This is a fair and objective piece. I'm glad to see it here as it is a reminder of the Pajiba core - honesty without interference from the studios or, in this case, festival owners.

2. I'm afraid I have to take Sundance's side in this situation. Regardless of the later commentaries provided by Dustin, the posting of his knee-jerk response was, simply put, unprofessional. His visceral reaction may have been accurate and it may have tempered some readers' interest in the film, as I'm sure was his intention. However, just as filmmakers must be responsible for accepting the criticism of your writers, so too must the Pajiba staff accept accountability for the consequences of such unprofessional publications. Had I been in "Wendy's" shoes I would have advised you that the organization respects your right to free speech, but at the same time the organization is by no means obligated to provide you professional journalist credentials, and any benefits they entail, if you are not going to publish responsible and thorough reviews.

I'm disappointed you aren't providing coverage - your reviews in the past have steered me to some really engaging movies that came out of Sundance. Likewise, I support your right to speak freely on what you see and review. But, as others have already stated, Dustin's review of The Woman was irresponsible and the entire Pajiba staff is now reaping as he has sown.

Posted by: lubeg at January 27, 2012 1:33 PM

I live in Seattle. If you give me press credentials to the Seattle International Film Festival, saving me several thousand dollars, I'll review any film you want.

Posted by: John G. at January 27, 2012 1:34 PM

So a critic attends a festival with exclusive rights to cover as press, wastes the opportunity to discuss a film (which according to his views had plenty of material to eviscerate at least, if not cover in a balanced way) and gives a three word review/inflammatory comment.

My objection isn't that it's knee-jerk negative and fails to acknowledge the potential messages of the piece, it's the fact that he simply refuses to actually review a film he's there to review.

I think it's a deserved ban. Dustin didn't do his actual job, and as a result cost his website the opportunity to cover the festival.

Posted by: Mark at January 27, 2012 1:35 PM

I wonder if the response would have been different if the knee-jerk reaction had gone up on Twitter, then the fuller review was posted here. Knee-jerk reaction is pretty much all Twitter is good for. But the idea this isn't censorship or punishment is laughable. We wouldn't be having this conversation is Dustin's knee-jerk reaction had been "FUCKING AWESOME."

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at January 27, 2012 1:36 PM

This is an extremely fair, well-written, thoughtful article. I'm glad you explained what was going on. This is why this site has the fan base that it does.

Posted by: lillie at January 27, 2012 1:37 PM

Point is, the 'review' wasn't witty or edgy as intended, it was lazy, unprofessional criticism

Posted by: Mark at January 27, 2012 1:39 PM

I'm disappointed Pajiba won't be at Sundance this year. The Pajiba reports and reviews from the festival are something I look forward to.

I don't see them as censoring you, either. You can still review the films - just not on their dime (press get free screenings and swag bags, right?) and by their invitation at this event. In my eyes: not a big deal. I'm patient; I can wait until theatrical releases for Pajiba reviews of the Sundance films that make it that far.

Posted by: monkeyhateclean at January 27, 2012 1:40 PM

Thank you for explaining. This site's transparency and honesty with its readers is on of the many reasons I love Pajiba. (Maybe a little too honest - re: your "Taming of the Shrew" confession. Ha!)

I can see the reasoning behind Wendy's explanation, but it still feels like punishment for a review that they just didn't like. And I hope it doesn't result in a lifelong ban, because I never would have heard of movies like "Attack the Block" if it weren't for you guys, and that was one of my favorite movies last year.

In any case, this was a very well-written piece, Seth.

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at January 27, 2012 1:45 PM

TL;DR

No schwag for you! Thanks for the clarifications. I don't agree with the decision either. I could see their point if it was ME who published the review, but you (the Pajiba staff) have proven, after years of generally well written and thought-out reviews, that you aren't just some random internet site posting "knee-jerk reactions." You would think that an allegedly independent film festival would welcome and encourage a truly independent film review site to attend, review, and publicize its films.

OR

Time to grow up Dustin and put your big boy pants on. Out of all the writers at Pajiba, it is you who most often crosses the line from thoughtful, bitchy snark to immature ejaculations of scatological and/or sexual profanity. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But the adults in the outside world may slap you down once in a while.

Posted by: Greedy at January 27, 2012 1:45 PM

Great piece, Seth. Very well done.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at January 27, 2012 1:46 PM

Also, what Tracer Bullet said.

Posted by: MM at January 27, 2012 1:47 PM

For a site that prides itself on "no advance screenings", one does wonder why you'd accept press passes in the first place.

Of course there's an obligation.

Posted by: Scott at January 27, 2012 1:49 PM

20 movies in 5 days? With Sundance being so desirous of the critical, nuanced, and in-depth review?

Riiight.

I remember the review (and subsequent references) of "The Woman". I find it hard to believe that, considering the subject matter, they were so taken aback by a reviewer whose lack of context on the director was the only reason he wasn't able to distinguish "The Woman" from the Saw franchise.

Frankly, if I need outside context to 'get' that a movie is not, in fact, misogynistic but skewering misogyny, then something has been greatly lost.

I appreciate Sundance's candor in explaining the thought process behind the ban. I also am cheered that it took rigorous debate before coming to this conclusion. I am, however, baffled by how "they have to show their filmmakers that the Sundance Institute protects them". (What on earth is the dynamic between Sundance and the film makers?? Because that is something that public school administrators should say to parents when discussing frivolous complaints about teachers.)

And maybe I don't understand the movie industry (ok, I definitely, don't understand the movie industry) but why on earth are they so invested in the reviews of movies featured at Sundance? How does that function as an appropriate extension of putting on a film festival?

Maybe I sound naive but shouldn't the process be: (1) yes, you are an actual movie critic for an [insert previously agreed upon definition for what establishes an appropriate crticial forum]? Credentials approved!

Anyway, I, personally, found Dustin's review to be remarkably effective. Oh, I'm sorry, is that only because I have the appropriate 'context' to know that Dustin writes excellent reviews??

Touché, Sundance, for doing to Dustin what you feel he did to "The Woman".

Posted by: Hayden Tompkins at January 27, 2012 1:49 PM

Point is, the 'review' wasn't witty or edgy as intended, it was lazy, unprofessional criticism

Missing the point completely.

Be that as it may, the more salient point is... that not why they were banned. It wasn't because of the quality of the review, it was because of the (perceived) impact it might have on the film maker(s). If I'm reading this right, Pajiba wasn't banned because it was a shitty review, nor were they banned for a lack of professionalism. They were banned because Sundance felt that some protection was owed to the film makers.

And that's my problem with the banning.

Posted by: Ghisent at January 27, 2012 1:49 PM

Easily one of the best pieces I've read in a long time. Honest, fair and honest. Wait, I said honest. Well done.

Posted by: ann marie at January 27, 2012 1:54 PM

I wish the ban really was because of the commenters so we could go get medieval on their Sundance-ass. But no, it's just that they need to protect their filmmakers' FEELINGS.

Posted by: mswas at January 27, 2012 1:59 PM

Ghisent: "If I'm reading this right, Pajiba wasn't banned because it was a shitty review, nor were they banned for a lack of professionalism. They were banned because Sundance felt that some protection was owed to the film makers."

And also because they are Pajiba vs. say, AICN. Does anybody seriously believe that Harry Knowles would have been banned for similar behavior? Silly question of course, because Harry will kiss the requisite asses...with plenty of tongue...to ensure access.

Pajiba is an independent voice, and we just can't fucking have that, can we?

Posted by: Barry at January 27, 2012 2:05 PM

I like Tk's reason for the banning better.

That said, I think you were very fair and balanced Seth. I certainly don't agree with Sundance or their weak reasoning but at least they were nice about it. Is there a film maker out there who actually has the thought process that they're not going to submit their film because someone might say bad things or write a review such as Dustin's? Please. Like Tracer said, if the review would have been "GREATEST MOVIE EVAR!" there wouldn't be any discussion.

Further; Dustin's one-sentence review had far more impact for me because of it's simplistic elegance. I've read enough of his stuff to know how he can drone on for hours about nothing or lambast a movie unworthy of the thought it takes to write a review. If he was willing to put that gargantuan effort into reviewing The Woman then I knew well enough to stay away.

Finally, having to do a bunch of research on a film maker in order to "get" their films verily screams of pretension. The majority of people who watch movies aren't going to give two queefs and a reach around about your "art" and they damn sure aren't going to get a film degree to try and understand you.

Posted by: admin at January 27, 2012 2:07 PM

thanks for the explanation, seth.
i'm pleasantly surprised at sundance's willingness to discuss it.

Posted by: gp at January 27, 2012 2:08 PM

BANNED FROM SUNDANCE.

Congratulations and I hope you put at the top of the page. Getting banned because THEY DIDN'T LIKE YOUR REVIEW is the ultimate honor for a site that prides itself on its honesty and self-reliance.

And screw the haters who think that Dustin's review was "immature" and "irresponsible". The movie offended you, and you said so, and that was that. They can go fuck themselves too if they don't like it.
~~~

Posted by: Meander at January 27, 2012 2:08 PM

I think getting banned from Sundance gives you more credit than attending.

Posted by: Bob Frapples at January 27, 2012 2:08 PM

Excellent piece. Tracer Bullet is right. JHC, it's flout, not flaunt.

Posted by: brm at January 27, 2012 2:10 PM

From my understanding of this article, Sundance didn't do this to protect their film-makers from negative reviews. It was to protect them from petulent insults under the pretense of being a review. A single, angry sentence is not a review. It just isn't.

Now certainly, we can argue semantics all day. A person could contend that any response to any art is a review, even if it's breif and praising, or short and angry (I could argue that sweat-shops are "good" if you give me enough time and big words). However, the current environement is one in which anyone can start a website and call themselves a "critic" and Sundance has to establish a bare minimum for what will earn you a press pass. This isn't so they can assure that each film-maker is being praised; it's to assure that each film is being given an intelligent audience. Foolish outbursts rarely earn people high degrees of respect.

We all know that a real "review" is an intelligent evaluation of a film, in which the critic will thoughtfully discuss the merits and flaws of the film they've just seen.
We see it here all the time.

Posted by: superasente at January 27, 2012 2:13 PM

Thanks for this, Seth. Great, interesting read that illustrates both sides of the issue in a very fair manner.

Question as a layperson who has never covered a film festival: when a site like Pajiba is given press credentials to something like Sundance, is there a formal agreement about the number of screenings that the website will attend and the number of "thorough" reviews that the website will publish?

Posted by: DarthCorleone at January 27, 2012 2:16 PM

Very well done, Seth.

However.......what Sundance did was in fact censorship. They revoked credentials previously provided to a legitimate entity over something they didn't agree with. Not sure if they see the irony of excluding people who usually champion their cause.

Posted by: Mickey at January 27, 2012 2:19 PM

I wonder if Pitchfork stopped receiving review copies of albums when they posted their review for Jet's "Shine On"

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/9464-shine-on/


Posted by: PartyInMyFace at January 27, 2012 2:20 PM

Excellent piece Seth. Thanks for clarifying the Sundance ban for us. I agree that content creators should not be protected from criticism by festival organizers, because the very act of creation comes with inherent risks, both positive and negative. And I think McKee is a big enough boy to understand, as you said, that some people will HATE his work.

Also, as anyone who has ever read any of my comments will know, I often take issue with Dustin's reviews of anything within the horror genre. I believe he is biased against it and therefore unable to provide balanced reviews. His "review" of The Woman was a particularly egregious example of this. After reading the review I watched the film, and while it contained some offensive material, I didn't quite see where the over-the-top vitriol was coming from. If anything, the movie's greatest offense was simply being boring.

However, Dustin showed some true maturity and objectivity by watching and commenting on other of McKee's works, and admitting that one piece does not make the man. And in general, I find Dustin's reviews to be thoughtful and generally on the mark. Maybe this is why his full or partial hate-on for horror bothers me so much. I want to see the same kind of thoughtful review of films within my personal favorite genre (and yes, that's an open admission of my own personal bias) from a person whose reviews I've come to enjoy and respect.

I hate that one minor piece, posted in a moment of anger, has in any way damaged or endangered Pajiba's reputation within Sundance. I think they're being a little too "helicopter parent" with the films they show during the festival. Inviting press comes with the risk of negative reviews, and both the Sundance officials and the filmmakers should be aware of, and learn from, this truth. But I also understand, to some degree, that they want to avoid a future of thoughtless, one line reviews from those to whom they issue press passes. So while I understand their decision, I can't entirely agree with it because, as you said in your piece, they're aware of Pajiba's history of thoughtful reviews with no studio influence. That's something film reviews in general need more of, and I can't help but think Sundance has taken a step backwards through this action.

Posted by: JustBill at January 27, 2012 2:22 PM

I think there are occasions where 'Go fuck yourself' is a valid response to a work. Sometimes a gut reaction to a film (or book or painting or whatever) can be as illuminative as something longer more nuanced and well thought-out especially when the audience 'knows' the reviewer.

Posted by: catagisreading at January 27, 2012 2:23 PM

I don't see why this piece would make the ban eternal, quite the contrary actually, I think this shows them how seriously you take the festival.

Posted by: zito at January 27, 2012 2:25 PM

Hayden Tompkins has already put it more eloquently than I would: "I find it hard to believe that, considering the subject matter, they were so taken aback by a reviewer whose lack of context on the director was the only reason he wasn't able to distinguish "The Woman" from the Saw franchise."
But I second the point. From my perspective, as a woman who hates the genre of film that uses and exploits sexualized violence against women, it sounds like I would feel exactly as Dustin did and I'm glad he wrote what he did. Have not seen the film (and I never will given the subject matter), this sounds like one of those instances of 'I'm so enlightened and ironic that I can say horrible things because I'm making ironic commentary'...but at a certain point the commentary gets lost and all you're left with are the horrible things that then are out there in the world. I stand with Dustin, and if that means we miss the Sundance reviews this year, so be it. But I do appreciate Seth's meditation on the situation, so there's that
.

Posted by: Alarmjaguar at January 27, 2012 2:28 PM

@monkeyhateclean -- More importantly, press gets into the screenings. Highly sought after films get big crowds that individual ticketholders might not get to see or would have to waste hours in line and miss other good films. A press pass (at most festivals) lets you skip the lines and get in to high-demand screenings.

Festivals (and I've volunteered at a few) spend a ton of time taking care of the press because they generate the buzz for the films. You need them to have access, but, with the demise of newspaper/magazine reviewers and the rise of the bloggers, it's hard to tell who is legit and who is just getting a free pass to lots of movies.

Posted by: R Hookup at January 27, 2012 2:33 PM

From my understanding of this article, Sundance didn't do this to protect their film-makers from negative reviews. It was to protect them from petulent (sic) insults under the pretense of being a review.

If that's true, it's even more pathetic. Lucky McKee is a grown-ass man. It's embarrassing that Sundance thinks that he needs any kind of "protection."

Furthermore, with a closer examination of Pajiba's body of work as a whole, as well as the fact that this wasn't their first time at Sundance, you'd think that even if that were the case, they'd give a mulligan. A warning, perhaps, and that's that. The banning is even more foolish given Dustin's eventual mea culpa and his closer, intelligent critical examination of McKee's work, which Sundance acknowledged, and yet went ahead with the banning anyway.

If you ask me, Sundance is the one being a little petulant here.

Posted by: Ghisent at January 27, 2012 2:36 PM

Also, I want to read the script to that sketch that Seth wrote.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at January 27, 2012 2:36 PM

Fuck those people

Posted by: Protoguy at January 27, 2012 2:37 PM

Thanks so much for this, what a thoughtful analysis. I especially love how you talk about Sundance seeming to protect filmmakers from harsh criticism. And while I also disagree with Sundance's decision, it's good to know that they weren't being knee-jerk in return, and I don't have to hate them.

It's just that although I don't consider this site to be a real safe space, Pajiba really is the only movie review site that I actually like. I was so looking forward to reviews of Wrong and An Oversimplification of Her Beauty. I can think of only two or three instances where you guys have steered me wrong.

Posted by: Rest In Peace at January 27, 2012 2:42 PM

The Woman was awful though. 2 hours of sad radiohead videos and emotional BS, not a single likable/smart character, bland dialogue and acting, and the WORST twist in a long time. Fuck that movie. I had the same reaction walking out as Dustin.

Posted by: Cory at January 27, 2012 2:42 PM

Goddamn Rowles and his jerky knee.

Posted by: snapnhiss at January 27, 2012 2:43 PM

I will weigh in briefly, just to echo Seth's entire piece and add this: I hold zero ill will against Sundance. This is why I don't attend PR-arranged advanced screenings, and why it took us so long to even accept press credentials at film festivals in the first place: I don't like being under any obligation to anyone when we post reviews. But I accepted the press credential, and therefore I was under an obligation to review the films in a manner they saw fit, or face the consequences. These were the consequences (I feel pretty bad that Seth and Joanna had to accept them, too). That said, it won't prevent us from attending Sundance or other festivals in future years, whether credentialed or not. We managed to do it for many years without them. We just have to weigh the expense of attending without credentials against the freedom to write what we want.

That said, it was an unprofessional thing to write, but I also like the freedom to be unprofessional on occasion. If I attended advanced screenings of wide release films, I'd have had the right taken away from me on numerous occasions and rightly so: The PR people have an obligation to protect their interests. They're just doing their job.

I will say this, though: Lucky McKee didn't give a shit. He posted links to my original review, the follow up review, and my review of May. Negative or positive, it's all publicity for him, and when you're a real indie filmmaker as McKee is (and as are many of the other Sundance filmmakers), coverage is coverage. I looked around a lot of other reviews, and -- to the credit of you all,our readers -- none sparked as much debate or comments. If you liked what I wrote or hated it, many of you were talking about The Woman, and that's exactly what McKee wanted when he set out to make a film as provocative as he did.

Posted by: Dustin Rowles at January 27, 2012 2:49 PM

Sundance is a about star fucking. Dustin threatens the star fucking so Pajiba has to go away. It's not about cinema...its about being seen caring about cinema. There are better formats and venues for independent films to get discovered...but that would threaten the star fucking so that can't happen.

In all seriousness...I love cinema but you could not pay me to go to Sundance. It is the same sort of mindset that drove me from California and back to Baltimore. That and the smack prices.

Posted by: Diablo at January 27, 2012 2:50 PM

What if Sundance didn't take this step? It would be tacit approval of Dustin's review. It opens the door for any attendee to write, "Fuck this movie" and nothing else for any film they don't enjoy. Sundance isn't a venue for angry outbursts and they have every right to withhold a press pass to someone they don't believe will give each and every film a baseline of respect (regardless of whether or not the film deserves it).

It's sounds to me like the only reason they even bothered debating the subject, and the only reason Seth was actually called with an explaination, is due to Pajiba's long history of intelligent reviews and Dustin's quick re-evaluation of his misstep.

This is NOT censorship. They didn't say you couldn't attend. They didn't say you couldn't write reviews. They just said you weren't granted the dignity of being there as part of the press. Its totally reasonable.

Posted by: superasente at January 27, 2012 2:50 PM

And screw the haters who think that Dustin's review was "immature" and "irresponsible". The movie offended you, and you said so, and that was that. They can go fuck themselves too if they don't like it.

He didn't say the movie offended him. He said "Go fuck yourself". That's a huge difference. And telling people who disagree with your opinion to go fuck themselves is pretty much turning you into the Sundance of your own argument.

Like PaddyDog said up top, you don't need to pile on to dissenters and prove you're a tough guy by bashing the folks who disagree with the authors. They're not infallible, and by acting as their unflinching posse, you're turning a place to serious discuss shit into a circlejerk.

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at January 27, 2012 2:52 PM

Tracer and TK- 100% right

I also think that the initial knee-jerk review told me exactly what I needed to know more than any long, thoughtful exploration of intent and execution ever could have. I know Dustin's style, and I while I certainly don't now Dustin the man himself, I feel like I've gotten at least a basic hold on how the guy ticks as far as film goes. So for dustin to post the fuck off line, that in and of itself was a powerful message that anyone who's familiar with this site would understand. And what about those unfamiliar with the site? Well, either they care enough to read some archives and GET familiar, or they don't. If they care, they'll get it. If they don't, they won't. And that's ok.

Keep writing whatever the goofy fuck you want. I'm adult enough to decide what I trust and what I don't, and if there are those here that aren't, well fuck em.

Posted by: ZombieMedic at January 27, 2012 2:52 PM

"What if Sundance didn't take this step? It would be tacit approval of Dustin's review." -superasante

What?! No. That is ridiculous.

Posted by: Hayden Tompkins at January 27, 2012 2:54 PM

I mean Seth. Not tk. Fuck TK.

Posted by: ZombieMedic at January 27, 2012 2:58 PM

Fuck you too, buddy.

Posted by: TK at January 27, 2012 2:58 PM

That's a bullshit excuse to ban you.

How would Lucky McKee feel if I started a petition to ban his movies from playing at my local theater to protect me from his films?

Posted by: John W at January 27, 2012 3:00 PM

Right, Superasante. Because the lack of disagreement equals agreement.

Posted by: admin at January 27, 2012 3:03 PM

Aaaaaand I'll be writing in my diary about the day TK told me to fuck off. Personally! Me! Not just the collective us, but me! Catharsis, all over my face :)

Posted by: ZombieMedic at January 27, 2012 3:05 PM

If the problem was that Dustin didn't write a well thought out review after being credentialed, that's one thing. I can see their point.

But when Sundance says that they have to protect their filmmakers from critics, that's disappointing.

Posted by: mswas at January 27, 2012 3:07 PM

To Dustin, Seth, TK...ehr'body...

As far as festivals go and press credentials. Is there an expectation of the number of films you'll see/review so as to be taken seriously as press? Like...Hey we're showing 50 films...you need to see half of them or something like that. That's always been something I've wondered.

Posted by: PissBoy at January 27, 2012 3:08 PM

He didn't say the movie offended him. He said "Go fuck yourself". That's a huge difference.

There's no "huge difference" there. Dustin has a long-noted objection to misogyny and exploitation in film and that was his immediate response to this one. I understood that and any reader of the site would understand that too. Not to mention it was funny.

Insofar as the dissenters go, they don't need any defense. If they want to pile on Dustin and tell him to "put on his big boy pants" and suck up to Sundance, then I can support Dustin and his right to say whatever he wants, about whatever he wants, whenever he wants to say it. That's not "piling on" - that is supporting freedom of speech.

You should try it.
~~~

Posted by: Meander at January 27, 2012 3:11 PM

Pissboy: They don't give us a actual number, but you have to submit your coverage, and if you want to be invited back the next year, you need to post enough reviews to satisfy them. Some online publications barely submit reviews at all (or even see that many films), but they do a lot of fluff pieces with the filmmakers, so they're typically accepted back.

Posted by: Dustin Rowles at January 27, 2012 3:13 PM

That said, it was an unprofessional thing to write, but I also like the freedom to be unprofessional on occasion. -- DR

Thank you, Dustin, for this admission. I, too, believe it was unprofessional. I also believe it was well within your rights to post as you did, so long as you were willing to live with the consequences. But most importantly, I think it's the will to live with those consequences, now or again in the future, which is a testament to the integrity of this site.

Posted by: lubeg at January 27, 2012 3:16 PM

I will say this, though: Lucky McKee didn't give a shit. He posted links to my original review, the follow up review, and my review of May. ... I looked around a lot of other reviews, and -- to the credit of you all,our readers -- none sparked as much debate or comments.

I'm glad you added that comment, Dustin, because it answered two of my biggest questions about this situation. I think it's very clear that what we have here is a complete failure by the adults in the room (the "media team" at Sundance) to come to the correct conclusion.

It is completely reasonable for them to ask, in the age of blog criticism, "are we giving special access to legitimate critics or just punk kids with a domain name?" But I fail to see how they can look at the review and the discussion it provoked and come to the conclusion that they did. The review matters. The context matter. The comments matter. The community matters. The follow up matters. Dustin's "fuck you" was not posted in a vacuum. It had meaning and generated a lot of critical discussion about the film. Pajiba may be unconventional, irreverent, acerbic, but they are never "ad hominem... without any critical thought or substance".

The fact that these people sat around a table and failed to realize the importance and the value of Pajiba's treatment of that film is just incredibly disappointing and a total failure to their responsibility. It's a chickenshit knee-jerk, ass-covering and intellectually lazy solution that lacks even a fraction of the thoughtfulness and consideration that Mr. Rowles gave to that rape movie they are so defensive about.

Of all the websites on the internet you accuse Pajiba of not being thoughtful? Go f*ck yourself, Sundance.

Posted by: Yossarian at January 27, 2012 3:21 PM

I totally get the impact when Rowles posts something like that*. I take it seriously. I'm still going to look into it, but a review that sounds "non-thoughtful" makes my ears perk up. However, I've read enough of his reviews and other reviews on this site. That's the only way I know that. So, if anyone is to argue that there is a flaw with The Woman if one has to know about the director to "get it" (which I'm fairly certain I support 100%), the same could be said of his "review" of that film. Don't think of Pajiba and don't think of Rowles and read that review. When read outside the context of the Pajiba community, it isn't much of a review.

Now, Sundance knows about Pajiba (which is why "Wendy" called), but I believe they are trying to maintain a certain air of professionalism. Taken on its own, the review of The Woman doesn't help that cause. They may have gone a bit overboard by denying press credentials. Hopefully it's just for this year.

* - I don't know who did it, but I think the review for 88 Minutes titled 88 Words was particularly brilliant.

Posted by: pissant at January 27, 2012 3:23 PM

Well, that wasn't nearly as salacious as I'd hoped.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at January 27, 2012 3:25 PM

"A single, angry sentence is not a review. It just isn't."

I don't agree.

Posted by: Nick at January 27, 2012 3:32 PM

Hello. I am representing the Devil.

Setting aside all the other stuff, I'd like to point out that saying Dustin's 3 word review should be taken in context of his body of work then turning around and saying that having to research a filmmaker to "get" his films is a MITE hypocritical.

Keanu, out.

Posted by: Alabaster Salamander at January 27, 2012 3:34 PM

We all know that a real "review" is an intelligent evaluation of a film, in which the critic will thoughtfully discuss the merits and flaws of the film they've just seen.

See, that right there is bullshit. A review is what the reviewer wants it to be. Period. It was a perfectly succinct, all-encompassing review to me. You don't get to say what a review is or should be, period.

Posted by: Fasser at January 27, 2012 3:39 PM

To some people, "Thumbs up" or "Thumbs down" is a review.

Posted by: MM at January 27, 2012 3:42 PM

To some people, the shite that Armand White writes is a review.

Posted by: admin at January 27, 2012 3:44 PM

You don't get to say what a review is or should be, period.

You do if you're a privately-run film festival. And that privately-run film festival thinks "Go fuck yourself" is an attack on the creator and not a review.

Dustin isn't being arrested. This isn't a free speech thing at all, and if you're turning it into that you're missing the point. Someone allowed some people in to their party, didn't like how they acted, and said not this year. End of story.

That doesn't mean I don't like Pajiba, that doesn't mean I don't think Dustin is the bee's knees. It just means that I totally get why Sundance did what they did.

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at January 27, 2012 3:47 PM

Wow, apparently I was too naive about how film festivals operate, because I am shocked that Sundance did this.

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to refuse press credentials to an individual/organization that only or primarily posted three-word reviews, if you thought that they weren't actually acting as press and were just abusing that status to get free access to screenings. I think it would be similarly reasonable to refuse press credentials to an individual or organization that posted reviews that were libelous or that were basically just ad hominem attacks on a filmmaker.

Neither of those things are true here. Dustin writes in general, and wrote for Sundance last year, a ton of detailed, lengthy reviews of films. When he writes a three-word review of a movie, it's not him pretending to be a movie critic to score free passes, and "go fuck yourself" might be rude -- as are plenty of longer reviews -- but it's not an ad hominem (it didn't pick an irrelevant characteristic of the director and try to extrapolate from a personal attack on him to a criticism of his movie).

If Dustin had posted a three-word review that said "It's fucking awesome!" or "Marry me, McKee!", Sundance wouldn't have looked twice at it. Similarly, I'd bet you that if Dustin had written a traditional review and ended with "In short: go fuck yourself", Sundance wouldn't have reacted this way. The problem was a combination of the style and the content -- you're allowed to dislike one of its movies as long as you don't think that it's so without merit that it's unworthy of being written about seriously.

Basically, Sundance didn't like how effectively Dustin was able to convey his (initial) view that the film was entirely without merit. If you don't like a film, you're still required to treat it as a serious artistic effort. You can not like it, but you can't not like it that much. I just don't think it's a film festival's place to "protect" directors by confining how much a critic is allowed to hate their film.

Posted by: Artemis at January 27, 2012 3:52 PM

"A single, angry sentence is not a review. It just isn't." - superasente

Some take the same view of art. A little paint spilled on a canvas. Does it pass the elusive, unwritten threshold? If an artist shits paint on a canvas, that's art to me.

Posted by: Mickey at January 27, 2012 3:54 PM

Wait. Waitwaitwait.

So do rent The Woman? Or don't? I'm confused. Man, it's times like these I wish you hipster fucks would just go with a three-out-of-five-stars system or something.

And what's "misogynologist" or whatever even mean anyhow?! Slow down with the big words, fella.

Posted by: Skitz at January 27, 2012 3:54 PM

damn it!! why can't i tag wendy on yossarian's comment?!

STUPID FACEBOOK!

Posted by: gp at January 27, 2012 3:58 PM

When someone creates something and then presents it to the masses, they are taking a known risk that the reaction they get is not necessarily the one they intended to get. It is their responsibility to make the movie what it is and it is they who need to take responsibility when it succeeds or fails. It is not Sundance's responsibility to defend the films or filmmakers from reviews. That responsibility falls to the readers/viewers to take in the review and decide for themselves if it is helpful for them to make an informed consumer decision, or if they need to go elsewhere.

I'll let you in on a secret, I too have seen a movie or two in which my initial reaction was indeed to tell the filmmakers to go fuck themselves. Fuck themselves for wasting my time, fuck themselves for taking my money, fuck themselves for squandering an opportunity to make a movie, fuck themselves for acting like their shit symphony is anything but. I'm sure if we all took the time to pain ourselves, we could have constructive and well thought out critiques of movies that were poorly made or just outraged us. Sometimes though, the initial and primal reaction to something (bad or good) is indeed the most honest. Dustin's initial review might not have been very informative on what the movie was about, but if that is the kind of reaction that it achieved from him, I'm not sure I'd really need too. I wonder if Sundance ever stopped to consider if the movie perhaps deserved the reaction that it got- even for a moment. I also wonder if the ban would have happened if the reactionary response had instead been something like, "This was the greatest thing since sliced bread!" Still just a one sentenced diatribe- but far more honey over venom.

To me, Sundance sounds like they took exception because they have this imagine of being a bastion where deserving films can get their moment in the spotlight. Dustin's reaction could be interpreted beyond the movie itself to suggest that Sundance has become a place where potentially any garbage movie can find shelter whether it deserves it or not. In other words they took offense to the notion that they themselves are responsible for the reactions for selecting the movie. They might have felt that it would be easier to leave out such an opinionated voice that could call out a naked emperor rather than for them to question the quality of the tailors' cloth.

Posted by: bleujayone at January 27, 2012 4:04 PM

@JakesAlterEgo

Well, technically you only get to say what type of review you will accept when determining who gets press credentials at your festival. It's still a review.

And on the scale of injustices committed in the world this year, yeah, this ranks pretty far down the list. Personally I think Dustin's "I'd rather be free to write whatever I feel then worry about meeting their standards in order to preserve access" response was perfect.

But I also think it's legitimate to criticize the decision by Sundance. That decision shouldn't be made lightly, if the festival cares about it's reputation and obligation to free criticism. That decision also shouldn't be made based on a single review, it should encompass the body of work. And finally, even if you do want to make that decision based on one film review it is the wrong decision to make considering all of the subsequent discussion and reflection that the film in question was given on this site. There is nothing, at the end of the day, to find fault with and yet Dustin and Co. are persons non grata at Sundance.

Yeah, the can make that decision and defend it. Still a shitty decision.

Posted by: Yossarian at January 27, 2012 4:07 PM

I really find the whole thing and commentary on it very interesting. I clearly agree that there is no "free speech" issue, and it's not censorship. I also don't think that most people are arguing that. I personally agree with Dustin's intital review and I really was interested in everything surrounding it. I am not sure if I agree that it was unprofessional as I have heard many colleagues respond to decisions and products in that same way with no consequence, let alone many reporters and reviewers that have said worse and less professionally. I personally support the review.
Of course Sundance has the right to take away the press credentials of Pajiba and I have the right to be disappointed and disagree with the decesion.

Posted by: Nimue at January 27, 2012 4:08 PM

I found a much shorter version of what I was trying to say upthread:

What Sundance is saying here is that they believe that every film at their festival is an artistic endeavor worthy of serious consideration, and critics who refuse to operate within that paradigm -- even with respect to just one offering -- are unwelcome to attend. That is, of course, their prerogative as a private organization. But I think it’s intensely wrong-headed on their part. Sometimes movies are entirely without merit, and are unworthy of serious discussion. And I think critics should be free to say precisely that (and Dustin found a particularly effective way of doing so, which is why Sundance is pissed) about movies they think deserve it.

Posted by: Artemis at January 27, 2012 4:09 PM

Superasente: Very Contrarian OR THE MOST CONTRARIAN?

Posted by: Smokin at January 27, 2012 4:11 PM

If by chance Dustin and Seth get all the way to the 70-something-odd comment, please consider this:

After reading this I was struck by the thought that you are dealing with Cicero's Sword of Damocles. Like many others, you are a film critic site outside of the traditional bounds of the media. While media outlets like yours are becoming more "mainstream" in that they have sizable readership, sponsors and a modicum of credibility (e.g. - media passes to festivals), you are still not operating by the traditions of other mediums. Television, books, magazines and newspapers, all have editors whose job it is to protect the entity from the damage that their content creators might inflict purposefully or inadvertently. However, because the money's so good (joke), you're both the writer AND editor. Obviously, you're finding out that there are consequences for failing to put a system like that in place.

In the end, whether you wanted to or not, you're sitting in the king's seat with the sword above your heads suspended by a horse hair. Needless to say, it's not a safe seat.

Posted by: gunnertec at January 27, 2012 4:12 PM

If they want to pile on Dustin and tell him to "put on his big boy pants" and suck up to Sundance, then I can support Dustin and his right to say whatever he wants, about whatever he wants, whenever he wants to say it.

Posted by: Meander at January 27, 2012 3:11 PM

Dustin can say whatever he wants however he wants to say it, especially on his own site. I was trying to point out that actions have consequences, not that he needs to suck up to anybody. If he wants to write a three word review for a movie showing at the most prestigious US festival for which he is credentialed, more power to him. But he shouldn't be surprised when said prestigious festival doesn't invite him back. And it sounds like he's not terribly broken up over it. "Big boy pants" was probably not the best phrase to use, especially since I see no evidence of crying or foot-stamping on his part. But sometimes, growing up is NOT saying whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want.

Posted by: Greedy at January 27, 2012 4:15 PM

All this 'holier-than-thou'-ness is getting a bit suffocating.

Posted by: Smokin at January 27, 2012 4:23 PM

I for one think it's pretty cool that Sundance monitors and looks after every review to the movies that play. I think they treated the situation fairly and ultimately made a mature decision and treated Pajiba fairly by taking time out to speak with them.
While I think it's terrific that Dustin is so anti-misogny, one line reviews are a joke and spit in the face of all the effort going into a film (though falling under the appropriate scathing and bitchy categories). While Dustin certainly doesnt qualify, this kind action does prevent why crappier reviewers from getting credentials. And again, thats what is getting banned...they still have every right to buy tickets and review like regular people do.

Posted by: valerie at January 27, 2012 4:40 PM

To tangentially comment on this awesome piece, I'm attending the Sundance Press & Industry screenings as an industry member (I'm a film programmer).
I will say with 100% conviction that of the 27 films I've seen in the past week,the film to watch for coming out of this week is Beasts of the Southern Wild. At my theater, we like to distill movies down to five-word descriptions (it's harder than you might think). My five words for Beasts of the Southern Wild are: mythic allegory for Hurricane Katrina. Holy shit. It's brilliant. It's a story I've never seen before, with a wonderful cast of unknown actors, the music is gorgeous, the cinematography is outstanding, I could list fifty superlatives and barely be able to scratch the surface of this magical film. I can't stop thinking about it - and I got to see it twice.
So that's your scoop from Sundance.

Posted by: naivehelga at January 27, 2012 4:46 PM

Superasente: Very Contrarian OR THE MOST CONTRARIAN?

Jay might fight him for that title. :)

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at January 27, 2012 5:07 PM

Truth, Mel...truth.

Posted by: Smokin at January 27, 2012 5:09 PM

Count me amongst those who thought the brief but profane review was a fair commentary. There are some things that simply don't deserve the attention that a full review would provide. Much like your decision to not review the works of the "Scary/Epic/Adjective Movie" folks.

The reason why I considered it a fair review is because I've come to trust your reviewers and their reviews. I've been reading this site for a good long time now. I know the criteria that are used here. I've a rather deep bias I suppose. A bias that others will lack. Were I an organization that provided press passes based upon the typical intelligent and in depth review, I would likely see that same review and wonder if I'd made a mistake. If nothing else, it would appear dismissive to the director, the cast and crew, and those who made the decision to screen the film in the first place.

All that said, this piece itself is a fine example of everything I enjoy about this site. It's well written, fair, and incredibly well thought out. All things that are very hard to find in the media as a whole and near impossible to find on the internet. If Sundance were to continue to deny your credentials based upon this article (which I think is highly unlikely), it would be a very large mistake on their part.

TLDR version: In all seriousness, y'all are my heroes. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Harborwolf at January 27, 2012 5:25 PM

The article should have just read: ‘Sundance: Go fuck yourself.’

Posted by: csb at January 27, 2012 5:26 PM

Group hug.

Now, it's Friday so can we all go fuck ourselves?

Posted by: Tao at January 27, 2012 5:27 PM

Real quick, very interesting article and comments, good example of why I really like this website. I also picked up on ALABASTER's comment...a reputation is obviously developed over time on both the part of a film maker and a critic (and everyone) and does add context and layers to their work. That said I don't think Dustin needed to research the shit out of the filmmaker's body of work to have a legit reaction, just like Sundance didn't need to take Dustin's reputation for solid work into account to take issue with a sub-standard review (Dustin acknowledges that it likely was). Both can stand on their own, and reaction to any one piece of work is legitimate. It sounds like a scathing, bitchy review that was thought out wouldn't have had consequences. Interesting piece folks.

Posted by: cjack at January 27, 2012 5:47 PM

Rowles, I hope the reason Sundance shit-canned pajiba was because of a column you wrote about Sundance, and that I subsequently proceeded to vomit my bile onto Sundance’s place in the world. I hope those motherfuckers are reading every one of your columns. From this moment on Rowles, every goddamn column you write I’m going to end it with “Fuck Sundance.” Rolwes, you might a Nancy-boy, but you’re our Nancy-boy, and we don’t take kindly to someone fucking around with pajiba. You don’t need no fucking Sundance, you can always go to the BET Awards show or the Source Rap Awards show. Motherfuckers think just because they give you a ticket, you got bow down to them fuckers. This shit got me pissed off.

Posted by: Pookie at January 27, 2012 6:36 PM

Thanks for posting this. I was curious why you guys were "banned," so this sates that curiosity. Please don't let this have a chilling effect on your writers. I'm disappointed enough that you have to asterisk out profanity, but I do understand the reasons for that, and you guys aren't running a charity. At least I can tell the intention of an asterisked word-- I'll never have a chance to understand potentially sanitized reviews.

My only source of information on films at Sundance is Pajiba, so if you guys aren't covering it, I won't search for reviews elsewhere. If the Sundance Institute would rather people like me not learn anything about films they screen, I guess this is the right approach. I would have thought any press would be good for aspiring filmmakers, and I'm not really sure that losing potential viewers is "protecting" filmmakers.

Thanks for the honesty, and thanks for the community you've given us with Pajiba.

Posted by: ck at January 27, 2012 6:40 PM

The other day I read that Redford said that Sundance was for "the 99%" and I laughed at that flagrant bullshit. So my reaction to this is "wow, they really are jerks after all."

Posted by: John at January 27, 2012 6:47 PM

Right on, Man.

Posted by: JoJo the Flying Monkey at January 27, 2012 7:49 PM

So it was a stupid one word review.

Which, I suppose, completely negates everything else Pajiba reviewed at Sundance last year. They could have ignored the review as an anomaly and looked at the whole body of work instead of "protecting the artists".

Film makers don't show their work at festivals to get a reaction or anything. We wouldn't want them curling up in a fetal position sucking their thumbs and rocking back and forth muttering to themselves now would we?

Fuck Sundance.

Posted by: greer at January 27, 2012 8:07 PM

Well, I think we all learned a valuable lesson here: don't answer your phone during a movie.

Posted by: =DocDoom1= at January 27, 2012 8:33 PM

I'm cool at least to know. I had my suspicions, really, but knowing for sure, and in such an impartial telling, is pretty cool.

I don't have an opinion beyond that.

Posted by: Jerry at January 27, 2012 9:10 PM

Thanks for this, Seth. As others have said, this was an incredibly thoughtful and well-written piece. Plus, it may have been long, but it wasn't boring. I think my position is similar to yours - I understand why they did it, I appreciate that they were willing to have a long conversation with you explaining their actions, and I still disagree with the final outcome. But the way it's been presented, I respect both sides of the issue, and I thank you for your transparency and honesty in explaining the process to your readers.

Posted by: dsbs at January 27, 2012 9:10 PM

I don't see it as controlling the type of review so much as controlling the quality of reviews. The reviews are almost as much a part of the film festival as the films. It's all content.

Posted by: Protoguy at January 27, 2012 9:18 PM

I find it interesting that so many people are coming to Dustin's defense when Dustin himself has admitted he was in the wrong. His "review" was shocking, sensationalistic, and impetuous. Evidently, it had a lot in common with the movie he was reviewing. Except the filmaker placed great thought and effort into his work, while Dustin was flippant and dismissive.

If Dustin had done his homework, had reviewed the film with a professional eye, considered what his "review" was saying to his readership, and still said what he said ... Well then, hi praise to you for sticking your finger up and taking your punishment with pride. In this case, though, he deserves to tuck his tail between his legs.

Sundance didn't have to pull the credential, but that doesnt mean they were wrong for doing it. and whether McKee was offended or not doesnt have much relevance either. Sundance the organization is standing up for all its filmakers. those filmakers went through a submission process, right? They were assured that Sundance is a legit operation, right? They arent required to show all films. If I film myself taking a shit and call it "art" they can reject it. And they can do the same to a reviewer who takes a shit on them.

I have more respect now for Dustin handling this issue then ever before. It takes a bigger man to throw a punch when he knows he can get punched back. The true test is how he handles Sundance in the future next time he sees a piece of shit movie there.

Posted by: L.O.V.E. at January 27, 2012 10:08 PM

Appreciate the heads up, and I can see both sides. What blows my mind is I just went to imdb and how are these possible?

Nicolas Cage has yet another movie (Seeking Justice)???

Sarah Jessica Parker replaces Demi Moore in 'Lovelace'???

World is upside down!

Posted by: trickyhd at January 27, 2012 10:41 PM

Aaaaaand I'll be writing in my diary about the day TK told me to fuck off. Personally! Me! Not just the collective us, but me! Catharsis, all over my face :)

Posted by: ZombieMedic at January 27, 2012 3:05 PM

It's a very large club, ZombieM. Welcome! By the way, the new members are expected to bring the coffee and donuts.

Posted by: Uriah Creep at January 27, 2012 10:59 PM

Dustin screwed the pooch on this one. He was given a credential pass to write a review that if negative was at least constructive in its approach. But he did no such thing. In fact after I read that review last year I had to go to another site to figure out what the movie "The Woman" was even about. That's to say just because Dustin does not like a movie does not mean that I won't either. In fact Dustin has ripped to pieces certain movies I enjoyed. The same goes for Roger Ebert, pundit extraordinaire and beloved critic. The difference is that Ebert always writes long and thoughtful reviews which is almost always the case for Dustin too. But one slip up is all it takes. (On a side note, I was a bit irked that you guys reviewed Red State in place of Elite Squad 2 last year, the later being the much, much better film.)

Anyhow, I'll have to side with Sundance on this one. But saying that I hope they give you the press credential next year.

Keep up the good reviews dude.

Posted by: Muteki at January 27, 2012 11:21 PM

Are there any NYC conventions or festivals that Pajiba attends?

Posted by: Lucas at January 27, 2012 11:36 PM

Wait a second. They withheld your credentials the year Alison Brie and Lizzie Caplan showed up to promote a movie and make kissy faces with each other?

I think Sundances's response to Dustin was, "Ditto." That is some cold-hearted shit right there.

Posted by: L.O.V.E. at January 27, 2012 11:56 PM

I can bring donuts, Uriah. But there will be no strawberry filling, because it's disgusting, but I can promise the cinnamon sugar coated cake donuts will be plentiful.

Posted by: ZombieMedic at January 28, 2012 1:01 AM

There's a distinct smell of fear coming off of this piece. I guess you really do want credentials next year.

Posted by: Dave Frankel at January 28, 2012 3:10 AM

Excellent piece of writing Mr. Freilich. It turns out that despite the scathing bitchiness and the (lamer) mock and droll this site does have reviewers that are reasonable, intelligent, fair minded and have the capacity to understand a point of view that does not agree with their own. (This is not a dig at Dustin's one line review, which actually told me everything I needed to know about The Woman).

Posted by: brite at January 28, 2012 4:41 AM

As long as it's donuts, Zombie, we'll be fine. We don't want to start one of those pie-vs-cake debacles.

Posted by: Uriah Creep at January 28, 2012 6:20 AM

What a self-aggrandizing pile of shit.

Posted by: chuckles at January 28, 2012 7:17 AM

fuck Sundance. sanctimonious pricks. protect the artists, go fuck yourselves. anyone who reads this site regularly would take a 1 line review by Dustin rather seriously. less is more, in context. besides, de gustibus non disputandum est. this isnt quantum physics.

Posted by: will at January 28, 2012 8:26 AM

Far be it for me to start a debacle. I remember one time it started out all civilized and then before you know it, someone was instructing Mrs. Julien to use a coaster and then it just went to shit. Donuts are a small price to pay for peace

Posted by: ZombieMedic at January 28, 2012 9:15 AM

All I have to say is thanks for explaining things to us, and for making the effort to be fair all around. Sometimes we eat what we say like ratty, dank old sandwiches, but that just leaves us more room in the fridge after.

Anyways, that metaphor kind of got away from me and I am hungry so I'm gonna go make a fresh, new sandwich and let y'all go on being all cogent and self-aware and such.

But thanks.

Posted by: coryo at January 28, 2012 9:40 AM

I found Pookie coming to Dustin's defense oddly touching.

Posted by: Craig at January 28, 2012 9:54 AM

Pookie oddly touches all of us from time to time.

Posted by: superasente at January 28, 2012 10:39 AM

Will there be reviews of any of the films presented at Sundance at all? The genuine enthusiasm shown by naivehelga for 'Beasts of the Southern Wild' makes a good case for perhaps soliciting some contributions from the 'chosen ones' who were invited to the festival this year, whether or not they primarily review films on a regular basis.

Posted by: special snowflake at January 28, 2012 10:43 AM

Ah, I knew one of Dustin's (many) shitty reviews would come back to bite him in the ass. Shame it had to happen to everyone at Pajiba though.

Posted by: Princess Celestia at January 28, 2012 12:29 PM

I have to say, thanks for writing this. I'm a relatively constant lurker here who only tends to de-lurk when I feel like I've got something to contribute, and occasionally, with this site, I worry that some of what I may contribute may just be dismissed or made fun of-- not that that's not understandable, just that I don't yet feel like one of the 'in crowd' here. So I was a bit concerned that you all were never going to explain the whole Sundance thing.

And, while I think that there was a much better way that they could have couched their comment, I do understand the Sundance Folks' point. Regardless of whether or not you agree with a film, as a film reviewer, I think that there's a bit of an obligation to at least explain why you found a film vile. I don't think that it's about protecting the artists' feelings; hell, if you hate the film, exposit on that for a while, but at least provide a rationale explaining why it was that you felt so strongly.

On a separate note, I was also at Sundance for a bit this year- though not as a reviewer. I was particularly pleased with the documentaries that I saw, including Escape Fire which was all about the need for a preventive health care system in the US. The film sourced its statistics onscreen and also offered a potential solution to the current crisis via companies choosing to lower the premiums of its employees who took active measures to increase their health-via working out or not smoking. I'm pretty sure that it'll get picked up, and it's certainly worth seeing.

Posted by: Ruby at January 28, 2012 3:20 PM

I still remember Dustin's review of the Woman. It was one of my favorite Pajiba moments and as a woman, I really appreciated it (and got a kick out of it). It probably helps to know the context of Dustin and Pajiba's reviews, though. Thanks for the thoughtful explanation. Keep doing what you're doing guys.

Posted by: homeslice at January 28, 2012 10:10 PM

It seems to me that if both the movie and the review had been seen/read in the context of the larger body of work of both men there would be no issue. But the question is which work, taken out of context, is more harmful. For many of us, the Pajiba reviewers are the first line of defense. They watch things so that we never have to. If I'd been looking for a review of The Woman and stumbled across Dustin's without having read him before, I would have been puzzled, perhaps dismissive but not scarred for life. Had I seen the movie without any warning and with no knowledge of McKee's previous works (actually, probably even in context), I may very well have been traumatized beyond repair. Just the description makes me anxious. Dustin had to sit through this thing with no warning. Never mind that he later got a chance to put it into perspective. He, like most moviegoers, went in completely unprepared and had a visceral reaction. Perhaps as a reviewer he behaved in a manner not up to Sundance's standards, but as a human being, his behavior was beyond reproach.

Posted by: princessbetty at January 29, 2012 12:01 AM

I suppose my problem with Sundance's stance is that they seem to be basing this (from what I can tell) on a singular review. They are quite obviously aware of the rest of Pajiba's work, yet that apparently didn't weigh enough to balance one honest, if unprofessional review K. There are many Sundance movies I have seen in theaters, rented on DVD, or hunted down on Netflix; without Pajiba, I would probably never even known about their existences, so who benefits from this? Certainly, not the filmmakers, not me, the consumer, and ultimately not Sundance. Sad days.

Posted by: megaera at January 29, 2012 7:15 AM

Forgetaboutit. Come to SXSW, Texans are just nicer people. And we understand when a movie review says "go fuckyouself" it simply means "that would be more fun than going to see this movie."

Besides, it's gotta be more fun. Better bars and better food.

Posted by: MRod at January 29, 2012 1:55 PM

I think the question Sundance should've asked itself was: would the filmmakers even care? Honestly -- and definitely no trolling when I say this -- but I have no doubt that many would have said, "Pajiba who?" if Sundance had announced that they had banned this site as press for the festival. This was a futile gesture in an effort to make someone feel relevant and pertinent in their job.

ON THE OTHER HAND.

It was a considerate gesture on their part. Stand-alone, that review wasn't constructive in the slightest. There are so many HOWEVER's and ALTHOUGH's that come with my comment that I'm attempting to keep it short. I tried. There's intelligence in my answer somewhere.

Posted by: duckandcover at January 29, 2012 11:49 PM

Im also in Seattle and can cover SIFF films. Cant wait!

Posted by: FrOprah at January 30, 2012 1:35 AM

Thanks for this piece Seth. Earlier I'd understood Pajiba had been banned due to statements made in the comments - and that would've disturbed the hell out of me. As is, I'm sorry Sundance took exception to one out of the numerous reviews you posted from the festival last year, and I hope they realize many of us (especially abroad) do turn to Pajiba for advice on how to spend our hard-earned ticket money. So sorry, 2012 Sundance filmmakers, you'll be missing out on my € this year.

Posted by: cinekat at January 30, 2012 5:54 AM

I have been an avid reader of your site and truly appreciate your reviews. The fact that you dont feel the need to kiss the film industry's ass so much (to your financial detriment sadly), the big fact that you write what you truly feel (impressively insightful and very well written at that), I have so much respect for you guys. Sometimes, you write so well that when i eventually see that film, i end up liking your review better than the film itself. That's how much of a good writers you guys are - and im especially a fan of Dustin Rowles. it is sundance's loss that you didnt get to write about their movies this year - but i commend that "Wendy" for being decent enough to let you guys know what happened, i think that that in itself is a recognition/show of respect for your work. There are other chances to review films, i am looking forward to your future reviews and thoughts about films and its industry. it's a loss that you wont be writing for sundance, but meehhhh. It still does not change the fact that i respect you more than any other film critics..... and that director that dustin wrote a one-line review for? it's in a film festival, it's about films, it is out there, it's open for all sorts of reviews...stop acting like they're fragile babies. he made a film about rape and torture - and a one-line review offends them? weird.

Posted by: blurgh at January 30, 2012 6:47 AM

Go fuck yourself.

Posted by: A Critic at January 30, 2012 9:30 AM

Seth! You've written a beautiful, considerate, intelligent and passionate article. Congratulations, and thanks.

Posted by: Caspar at January 30, 2012 10:29 AM

Agree with those who express disbelief that filmmakers put all manner of "offensive" material into movies to make a "point," but reviewers aren't allowed to post one offensive sentence to make the point that the movie isn't worth more effort, i.e., that it sucks? Amusing. Such tender, sensitive artists. No wonder they need protection from the folks in Utah.

And I agree that being banned from Sundance gives Pajiba more credibility than being granted press credentials. If we got one-sentence reviews here every week, I'd understand people feeling that it was "lazy," or "unprofessional," but we don't. We get multiple paragraphs, many of them about movies that barely deserve one paragraph of explanation.

I guess it was nice of the Sundance people to explain the "ban," but their reasoning is retarded. They're a private entity (I assume), they're entitled to make their own rules, there is no issue of censorship here, but still. Retarded. "You hurt someone's feelings, so we're gonna stand up for them by not allowing you to participate in our overrated filmapalooza." Wah. More whining than a room full of toddlers.

Posted by: Slash at January 30, 2012 11:28 AM

Also, if it means anything to Pajiba staff, I don't really care about film festivals. It doesn't really matter to me whether a film killed it at Sundance or Cannes or wherever.

If a movie sounds interesting to me and trusted reviewers (like those here) say it's worth my time and money, I'm likely to go see it, regardless of how Sundance or the Cannes felt about it. And if Pajiba says it sucks, I tend to give that a lot more weight than its inclusion in a film festival lineup. Which sounds kinda like what concerns the Sundance people most, that most people don't care what they think is worthy of our time and money. I don't consider film festivals really objective assessments of quality. Plenty of movies coming out of film festivals are stinkers, for one reason or another.

Posted by: Slash at January 30, 2012 11:49 AM

Pookie oddly touches all of us from time to time.

I think there is a separate group for people who've been "oddly touched" by pookie. Donuts also encouraged.

Posted by: =DocDoom1= at January 30, 2012 1:32 PM

This is one of the things that I love about this site. I have been reading it for years and years and although sometimes things do not go their way, the writers here generally offer an intelligent rundown of events in cases such as this. I have enjoyed reading the post and all the comments on it as well.

It is a shame that Sundance made this decision, but I think that Pajiba is handling it in a mature manner.

Posted by: Alli at January 30, 2012 7:21 PM

I love this site. You know what? This Sundance shit just makes me love you more.

Thanks for being one of the rare pop culture blogs that has principles and sticks to them. And thanks for speaking out against rape culture time and time again. It may feel like a loss, but this is exactly why you have such loyal fans, even amongst the lurkers.

Posted by: Ruthie at January 31, 2012 10:17 AM