Ken Tucker On Gunner Palace

New York Magazine is now at the bottom of the list of silly publications that think anyone can be a film critic after replacing their celebrated critic, Peter Reiner, not with a gender or race motivated hire, but with another white middle aged man whose primary value was that he was less qualified for the job.

But Ken Tucker embraced the worst of all criticism with his review of Gunner Palace last week, going into full Alice in Wonderland mode. You see, because filmmakers Michael Tucker and Petra Eperstein showed the truth of what they found (subsequently confirmed in military screening after military screening) and did not make a film about how evil the Bush Administration is, Tucker felt the film was a failure. Films are much better with the political context in which he believes, apparently, assuring that audiences don't have to waste their time thinking for themselves.

For me, this is as close as you get to evil in film criticism. Quote whores are meaningless in comparison. Any critic whose take on their beat is "this better fit my world view or not only will I say I don't like it, but I will pillory the filmmakers as irresponsible fools." To hide that position behind the critical veil of "bad filmmaking" is really low.

Of course, when confronted about this by actual soldiers who disagree and took offense, both at the characterization of the film and of the soldiers in the film, Tucker finally responds by trying to weasel out of what he said. You see, he claims, the view of the soldiers that he found so distasteful is not a reflection of how he perceives reality, but of how the filmmakers made the soldiers appear. It's not that this snob, who then deigns to explain that another doc is much more accurate when as far as I know he has no point of reference for that determination other than his opinion, just finds the rank and file of the army distasteful... that he is uncomfortable with the realities of who is fighting for his country in Iraq. It is someone else's fault. And of course, it is all George Bush's fault... all negativity must be all Bush's or it is bad negativity.

The last time I experienced something this infuriatingly stupid in this way was a decade ago when I saw one of Michael Moore's first films, Blood In The Face, which showed American Neo-Nazis' daily lives and half the Sundance audience of Facist Liberals (a specific group) raged at the filmmakers for not being clear enough that Nazis were bad. They didn't trust other audiences - they were smart enough to get it, but those people... - to figure it out for themselves. So they would prefer silencing truth to risking the nightmare of letting people make up their own minds.

I seem to remember liking Ken Tucker at EW... nice guy... but I don't like or respect this kind of thinking and I am embarrassed for our profession. We are, I thought, supposed to be in the work of considering the work with both objective and subjective tools. And this is, for Mr. Tucker, a clear failure.

Comments

[teambanzai]

I don't think I can respect someone that can't even stick to his own opinion when he's called on it. That sure stinks of it not really being his opinion so much as an attempt to either stir up some shit on the subject or totally misreading his audience thinking they would rally behind his view.

[Stella's Boy]

I already wanted to see this movie, but now I really, really want to see it. I don't feel like I can accurately comment on the Tucker situation until then, but it sure does sound like he is being a huge moron here.

[L&DB]

Sure. This ranks right up there with one of the
worst things a critic can do. However, him being
a critic, seems to be inline with what critics are
today. All hyperbole and no real thought. Yet Tucker
pulled this stuff all the damn time at EW. He
did it in both TV and Music reviews. Ol'Ken really
seems to dig not reviewing the actual art at hand.
Rather, he enjoys reviewing his interpretation of
said art. Thus making any type of art that goes
against this interpretation bloody horrible.

[Eric]

DP, the evil in any critic isn't an insistence that the movie align with his viewpoint. Everybody carries expectations into the theater, and you can disregard a critic whose expectations-- whose frame of reference-- is wildly different from your own.

The critic's great sin is his fundamental lack of faith in his own opinions, as expressed in a willingness to hedge and back down in the face of disagreement. As a critic's worth to us is found solely in his opinions, why should we rely on those opinions when he clearly doesn't, as well?

[lazarus]

David, how are you relating Blood in the Face to Michael Moore? As far as I can come up with, he received a special thanks but wasn't one of the producers, writers, or directors. I don't think that qualifies it as being one of his "first films". Surely this isn't a roundabout way of calling him a Nazi!

Thanks for sticking up for the Gunner Palace guys though. I'm surprised that the film is being championed by the right, as any film that shows the realities of war is probably not going to help the cause, especially in Iraq.

[JPritchett]

Lazarus: If I remember BLOOD IN THE FACE correctly, Michael Moore does several of the on-camera interviews with the Neo Nazis.

[Joe Leydon]

Sounds like a warning (which, I admit, I cribbed from my favorite journalism professor) that I give to my students: Anybody can write a favorable review. But if you're going to write an UNfavorable review, you better damn well know what you're talking about, or you will get nailed to the wall by those who do.

[David Poland]

Yes... Ridgeway, Rafferty and Bohlen deserve proper credit for Blood In The Face. But Moore was in it, Godfathered it a bit and in a conversation I had with him, he described it as his "first film." (I was encouraging him to use his fame to revive a film that I think is very important.)

[Mike]

This is the most evil that a film critic can do? Jeez Dave, glad to see you're not overreacting again. *rolls eyes*

Did some of Tucker's review come off as criticism of the situation rather than criticism of the film? Yeah. Was the comment about education way overboard? Yeah. Does that make him evil? No, that makes him a snob.

But he's right, though, in that what was shown were editing choices, and his reaction to what he saw obviously left a bad taste in his mouth, especially in comparison to another film that paints a different portrait. Who knows which is more accurate? As I haven't seen any reviews from troops on the ground about the Frontline piece, I'm going to say, they probably both are.

Because one comes to more of a conclusion while one prefers, I don't know, a life-like chaotic structure; and one shows more troops in day-to-day combat situations rather than hanging out by the pool, does that make him an evil man for comparing them and showing a preference? Doesn't seem so bad to me. Helpful editing and showing more of the troops in action, rather than spouting off or complaining sound like things I might prefer, and would like to know about competing films from a film reviewer.

And all reviewers go in with certain worldviews, which they rarely break out of. I refer you to the 95% of reviews of The Passion, which basically said that "Gibson isn't preaching to me, so it doesn't matter for me to consider what he's trying to say at all."

If you can't take a review grounded in someone's worldview, how will you ever be able to talk with anyone about any film ever again? Seeing it through someone else's eyes helps put it in perspective. Would it kill you to see this film through Tucker's eyes? What does that say about your worldview?

And as for Tucker's backtracking, he doesn't really seem to be doing a complete U-turn on his position to me. He is commenting on the editing choices, as he did in his original review. The only thing he apologized for was not making that clearer. Doesn't really seem worth the vitriol to me.

[bicycle bobo]

any docu compared to a moore film will look better. he doesn't make docu's. he makes fiction

[Stella's Boy]

It would be wonderful if we could discuss Gunner Palace and not Michael Moore.

[Terence D]

I for one am looking forward to seeing Gunnar Palace. I usually do not like documentarys because they bore me to death.

[Josh Paddison]

I don't have a problem with Tucker's review. He makes several comments on problems with the movie's TECHNIQUE, not just its politics: he says it's sloppily edited, a "narrative mess," doesn't differentiate characters well, and is inept at maintaining a consistent perspective. He ALSO attacks its politics, saying it's naive and dishonest to portray foot soldiers negatively without the broader context of who sent them there and why they chose to go. This too seems fair criticism, and entirely appropriate for a review.

I find his response to those blackfive.net people to be craven, but there's nothing wrong with his original review. "Alice and Wonderland mode"? Hardly.

[Doutbing Thomas]

Okay, let's see... Poland approvingly links to blackfive.net, a notorious hard-right website (just look at its ads if ya doubt that description)... then slips a gratuitous reference to "Fascist Liberals" into his posting... Yeah, Poland, I can see ur a completely apolitical fellow, just like ya always claim whenver someone calls ya on ya politics. But if ya go around quacking during duck hunting season, ya really shouldn't complain if someone takes a potshot at you.

[Violetlake]

David,you reviewed this film favorably early on and saw the potenial way before it found a buyer; Mike Tucker has made something unique and real and that irritates folks like Ken Tucker who must go pretty low and be really uninformed to create a minority view dumb review. To charge the filmmaker with not being empathic with the soldiers is such slander. I saw Lt Colgan's father, Joe Colgan, whose son's death is memorialized in the film hug Mike Tucker and bring his whole family to see it. Ken Tucker, the new guy at New York magazine should try a different career path. He is so out to lunch. For God's sake the filmmaker lived with them, cried with them, went to Iraq on his own "dime" with no crew, and spent weeks sharing the film directly with audiences from all political persuasions across this country. Ken , listen to Wilf on NPR, get a grip!!

[David Poland]

Wow, Doubting Thomas... smearing me now... neat.

I've never claimed to be apolitical. I'm a liberal. And I don't care for facist behavior on either side of the political spectrum. I wrote about the paranoid bleatings of both Gibson and Moore this last year in equal measure (or with equal intent... Moore probably got more ink).

And Mike, have you seen Gunner Palace? Do you know that a significant portion of the film is footage of the urban combat in Iraq? Did you miss that from Mr. Tucker's review? I think that makes my point.

Can I discuss film with people with different worldviews? Absolutely. I do it every day. But my objection is not with the conversation... it is with rhetorical techniques that are meant to stop conversation. And I believe that Tucker's review is just that kind of device. Yes, there were criticisms of style. I don't disagree with all of them. But the main point, as I read it, is to suggest that the film is too busy mocking the soldiers to get to the real problem... George Bush. And that is reviewing something other than the movie. No?

[Mike]

See, I came to Tucker's review pretty clean as I haven't made up my mind on the film either way, but I didn't take it as a review of something other than the movie. I took it as a critique against the reason for the movie.

He says pretty clearly early on that while this is no doubt real, that these kids are the people with the least amount of power in this whole Iraq situation. They're fighting the war, but did they make the decision to go to war? Do they have any real control over whether the war will continue or not? Whichever way you fall on the reasons for going to war, the answer is no.

So what are you left with if not a document of people put in a precarious position with no power to change it? And while some may find that compelling (as all the positive reviews seem to prove), others might feel that what you're left with is a bunch of emotions and no place to direct them. Tucker, it seemed to me, was saying that he wanted somewhere to direct them. Specifically at Bush.

Is that an agenda? Yeah. Does that bother me? No, as he admits it.

Before going into this movie, as I watched the preview, I wondered if the movie would go anywhere, or just be a portrait of the people fighting, with no real conclusion. Because if that's all it was, I didn't really want to see it. So, personally, I think his points were fair (if obviously liberally biased) and something I'd hope to get from a reviewer.

[Mark]

Liberals just can't take it when a movie congratulates Bush. They are people of failure now. They root for failure everywhere. Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, US. They can't even come out and say and give credit where there is good. Its hard being the failure people.

[Stella's Boy]

And here we go again.

[bicycle bob]

stella loves the group whitesnake

[Nathaniel R]

Mark, wow no gag reflex! You sure can swallow that propaganda whole. People of failure? I love how black and white / good vs. evil our American mindset is now --Guess who's been training us to think that way for 5 years?

Consider this: Any time a country moves in a divisive direction it's going to upset half of its citizenry whether that be the progressives or the conservatives. Once the minority portion of the citizenry freaks out about the horrible stuff going on... the people who agree with the direction that's taking place are always going to try and paint the minority group with ugly colors... such as you're doing now.

Pretend you're on the other side (just to see if you can) and ask yourself this: How does one speak out against a genuinely divisive administration that one feels is dangerous while cheerleading them as well? And can that be done? The question is applicable to both sides of course (you just have to be able to imagine it from either direction)

I don't recall a time when Rush Limbaugh and the other very forceful rhetorical bile-spewers on the right every congratulated Clinton on a job well done. Did they? Did people call them "a people of failure" because they relished Clinton's slip ups? Why should liberals be expected to bow down to King Bush --if they did they'd be labelled as a "flip flopper" wouldn't they?

See, you can't escape no matter what you do once the citizenry thinks in these ridiculously reductive ways. When are we going to grow up as a country? What is it going to take?

[Terence D]

Nathan, why do you hate conservatives so much? Is it because the liberal party has lost every election since 1996? The blind hatred annoys me.

[Stella's Boy]

Where in his post does he state that he hates conservatives? I must have missed that part. Can you please point it out for me?

[bicycle bob]

liberals. all nut jobs. pick up a gun and stand a post. thats the only way u get peace. u win it.

[Stella's Boy]

Wow. Amazing observation. So insightful. We all learn so much from posts like that. You can only get peace by winning it with a gun. What's sad is you're dead serious. What does that have to do with anything being said here? And must you repeat yourself over and over again? How many times have you said "all liberals are nutjobs?" Guess who that makes look like a nutjob?