Inside Llewelyn Davis is a movie.
That would be Inside Llewyn Davis.
Whereas inside me there's naught but darkness and a gnawing hunger. And a couple of peanut butter cups.
Suburban fin-de-siècle ennui is what I've got, the old stockbroker's syndrome.
That and some ginger ale.
Selectively editing the words of critics is a time-honored practice in movie promotion. Does any critic really use all caps and exclamation marks to declare the latest Hollywood fare "A TRIUMPH!!"?
this tempest in a teapot aside, i really enjoyed the movie, and the soundtrack really is great.
And it does certainly sound in character for Scott Rudin.
Not a gonzo outing like Hudsucker or Raising Arizona, nor grim noir like No Country.
Just a somber character study.
Actually there are critics who are notorious for writing "reviews" specifically designed to be plundered for pull quotes.
You got it, buddy.
For a few weeks I thought it was "Llewelyn", so recently I've been extra aware of that detail.
Perhaps, just for a moment, it felt like a connection to a human being.
Isn't that the point of Twitter?
Surely, the fact that Rudin and co. ran with it after soliciting a "NO" is the morally and intellectually low ground in this argument that cannot be defended.
But, serious question for @beschizza and others: If Justine Sacco paid the price she did because, in part, she was in the position of a professional PR person and thus should have known better about the potential consequences of what she posted to twitter, then why should Tony Scott, as a professional critic, be surprised when his written opinion on a film be reused and rebroadcast?
I get that there may be some grey between when a mob does it to a person vs. when a corporation does it to a person, but I feel the line should be starker than that. I think if Rudin had run with the entire quote without asking permission that they'd have a stronger argument for the social acceptability of their use of public speech.
You know immediately what sort of person Rudin is from the fact that he asked for permission to run the quote, was told an unequivocal "no", but did it anyway. Why bother asking permission? Perhaps, just for a moment, it felt like a connection to a human being.
Hmm. I'm pretty sure Mr. Doctorow's opinion is that if you don't need to ask permission, then don't even try. What kind of person does that make him. For that matter, what kind of person would it make the GoldieBlocks people if their use was, in fact, fair use? Just using someone's work without asking is fine, but having the courtesy to "ask" (i.e., let them know) makes you a piece of shit? It's better to not even feel, for a moment, that you've made a connection to a human being?
Letting them know is not asking. Asking implies you care what their response is. So yes - if you are going to do it anyway, better to just do it than be the sort of asshole who covers it behind a thin veneer of civility by /pretending/ to be a good person without actually intending to be so.
So under the alternative approach we don't even pretend to be good? If we're not pretending to be good, then how come we aren't just straight-up assholes?
I think the real issue here, as always, is the tension between individuals and corporations. If I was making a documentary and wanted to use some footage from a big studio, I might ask them for permission even if I believed it was fair use. If the studio said no, I might use the footage anyway. Would this make me a huge asshole for having asked? If the studio raised a stink afterwards, would they have your sympathy?
Also, isn't A.O. Scott just pretending to be the victim here? Is the concept of selective quotation from reviews some new phenomenon? Does he object when his print reviews are selectively quoted? Does he feel they need permission to do this? Should there be the sort of extended discussion Margaret Sullivan clearly contemplates when excerpting print reviews? Did A.O. Scott, as a book reviewer, enter into these kinds of discussions when he excerpted from books he reviewed?
I don't think there's anything wrong with quoting Scott against his wishes. He said it in public, tough titties.
The problem is the weird combination of editing and the ad design's implicit suggestion that it is the unedited original. I don't think it's a legal thing, it's just a humongous asshole thing. As was the pretense of asking permission.
Hypermodern issues? Is that the same thing as First World Problems?