"Where Movie Critics Get A Taste Of Their Own Medicine!"
|
|
| An interview with:
Chris Gore by Herb Kane Published February 25, 2001 |
|
|
The first time I saw Chris Gore was in the summer of 2000 hosting "The New Movie Show with Chris Gore" on the FX Channel. The show was extremely entertaining - a kind of "politically incorrect" for film that ran 22 episodes. Each week Chris invited a panel of four movie critics to debate movies on TV. I loved it! In fact, I wrote Gore to see if he would be interested in publishing my Critic Doctor column on his web site at Film Threat (filmthreat.com). He responded back with a big fat yes. Needless to say, I was extremely excited that the host of a national TV critic show liked my stuff. My column continues to appear on his site today.
Chris Gore has built a solid reputation as the hilariously honest, down-to-earth creator and editor of Film Threat - a magazine that became famous for covering cult films, midnight movies, underground shorts and - before a market even emerged - independent films like Spike Lee's "She's Gotta Have It," Jim Jarmusch's "Stranger Than Paradise" and Quentin Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs." FilmThreat.com is now one of the most popular and respected indie movie sites on the net with over 150,000 weekly readers generating six million hits a month.
Gore attended his first film festival at the age of twelve and has been to over 100 since. He has been a judge at festivals such as Athens, Austin, Edmonds, Florida, Slamdance and the USA Film Festival - as well as a featured speaker. His passion for festivals led to his first 1999 book "The Ultimate Film Festival Survival Guide" (Lone Eagle). He was recently the keynote speaker at the Hollywood Black Film Festival. The book is now the leading title in its category with an updated second edition just released for 2001. Gore is also the author of a book about unproduced screenplays called "The 50 Greatest Movies Never Made" (St. Martin's Press).
Chris Gore is currently a movie critic for "The X Show" airing week nights on cable's FX Network. His other television appearances include MTV's Big Picture, CNN, The Cartoon Network, The Sci-Fi Channel, American Journal, Premiere Story, Geraldo, Split Screen, E! True Hollywood Story, etc.. Gore has hosted the DVD Festival Awards for the VSDA and is a regular radio commentator on movies for stations across the country.
This is another interview special to me because Chris was the first publisher to give my Critic Doctor column its first break in the entertainment online community. As a result, I became more motivated and worked harder on writing a better column. I'd like to thank Chris for his initial and ongoing support of Critic Doctor.
So it is with great pleasure to bring to you an extremely revealing interview with CHRIS GORE. And make no mistake. This is a BIG ONE!
Kane: You are currently the editor and publisher of Film Threat (filmthreat.com). What makes this web site unique from other entertainment sites and what inspired you to start it?
Gore:
What makes FilmThreat.com unique is our point of view.
We will cover all the mainstream Hollywood releases and simultaneously
give the same amount of attention to a short film made by an unknown
filmmaker from Ohio. Or an indie movie playing on the festival
circuit. Or a short that can be downloaded on the web. We've been
covering the indie film scene before it was even called "indie"
- since 1985 when I started the Film Threat fanzine in college
as a teenager. 
What inspired me to create Film Threat was David Lynch's movie "Dune" in 1984. I was really excited by the prospect of this incredible science fiction novel being turned into a big budget movie by one of my favorite directors. I'm a big fan of sci-fi, but the genre often gets caught up in the gadgetry and spaceships instead of focusing on the ideas and how man reacts to new worlds, social structures and technology. When I saw "Dune" when it premiered during Christmas 1984 and I was stunned at how awful it had turned out. It floored me. There were a lot of punk rock and skate punk fanzines at the time and I thought about doing one about movies. As a reaction to Dune, I put out the first issue of "Film Threat" which was six pages and xeroxed. I created it with a fellow student and a great friend named Andre Seewood.
The punk aesthetic really got a rise out of professors and
students at Wayne State University in Detroit where I was going
to school at the time. We soon began sending the zine out to other
places and stores even asked for them in bulk and we got paid.
Andre and I parted ways but he continued his lifelong interest
in movies by becoming a film professor in Detroit. To make a really
long story short, (16 years) the fanzine soon evolved into a magazine,
I moved to Los Angeles in 1989, sold the mag to Larry Flynt in
1991, continued as editor in chief for five years. Then I left
Flynt to pursue a career in the CD-Rom business and simultaneous
with the crash of that business, Flynt canceled the magazine and
the rights reverted back to me. I did a few issues of the mag
and when it couldn't work financially, I launched the web site
and e-mail newsletter in 1996 and have continued on the web ever
since. During that time I was writing books, pursuing TV and mainly
was focused on raising my kids and I'm continuing with all of
this.
Kane: Your TV show "The New Movie Show with Chris Gore" is now on hiatus until it returns in national syndication. Tell me about the "new" in "The New Movie Show." What makes your TV show "new" as compared to other shows featuring movie critics?
Gore: It's not just on hiatus - I would say it's dead at this point. "The New Movie Show" was taken off FX, yet I still do a segment on movies every Thursday on the "X Show" (11 PM, FX). FOX has plans to sell "The New Movie Show" in syndication, but I don't believe that will actually happen as there is a competing show that is just like it already sold into syndication. The show is called "Hot Ticket" and has Leonard Maltin on their panel. It was described in the latest issue of TV Guide as a "Politically Incorrect for the movies." It's from the producers of "Entertainment Tonight," so I expect it to be a pretty mainstream take on the show that I did.
I'm proud of what I accomplished with "The New Movie Show." It ran successfully on FX for 22 episodes all last summer. It proved that there could exist an alternative to the only other movie review show on television which is Roger Ebert's show. I am proud of the fact that the panel on our program was not just racially and gender diverse, but that we included points of view that ran the entire spectrum. I think that for too long now, the landscape of people who discuss movies on television has been dominated by older, white males. Heck, I'll be one someday, but there has to be an alternative. When I see some of these critics discuss movies, it pains me because they're not even in the demographic the film is targeting. Most moviegoers are guys 18 to 35 and I am still in this group, yet those who discuss movies on television, with all due respect to Maltin and Ebert, they are more than 20 years past this mark. Just so you know, I have been watching guys like Ebert, Siskel and Maltin for those 20 years. They are heroes to me. When I was a teenager and bought a VCR with money saved from my paper route, I would tape Siskel and Ebert every week. It was the only place to get smart discussion of film that wasn't esoteric or too academic. They brought the conversation down to a level I could understand WITHOUT dumbing it down. Maltin was, and still is, the only respectable segment on "Entertainment Tonight." He knows film, although his best stuff are the reviews he does each month in "Playboy."
Overall, I think it's important to include a diversity of opinions and I feel I achieved that. "The New Movie Show" made for a lot of interesting conversation. I was adamant about including reviews of independent films, even if they only opened in one theater in New York. We reviewed and discussed controversial documentaries about drugs, rave parties and politics. I even made sure we covered significant movies playing at IMAX theaters. It was my idea to include a segment called "DVD Film School" where we featured a minute of director's commentary from a recent DVD release. The show was not perfect, my battle was always to try and make it a smarter show, but ultimately it got people talking about film in a new way. I think that way is reflective of the conversation happening on the internet. The most exciting writing about film happening now is online. In fact, I made sure to have a dot-com critic on our panel every show. I made sure we had female critics and critics of color and we even had Gay panelists. It was also important to me that we go beyond the conversations of "this movie is good or bad" and explore issues on the show in an entertaining format. I feel it was a success in spite of its single season run. Aside from Leonard Maltin's "Hot Ticket," CNN Showbiz is doing a "panel of movie critics" show among others. I simply believe in diversity of opinions and just get frustrated when I see one group dominating, like it is currently. Hopefully these shows will copy other aspects of what we did, rather than the simple format and include new and interesting voices talking about film.
I don't hold out much hope for the return of my show with competition
coming from people like Leonard Maltin. I cannot compete with
someone like him who has a household name and a known brand. But
there is a temporary web site set up at www.newmovieshow.com.
As for now, I am focusing on the "Film Threat"
site, the "X Show," two new books I'm writing
and I am pursuing other TV shows for networks like "HBO"
and the "Independent Film Channel."
Kane: Some people think of movie
critics as arrogant, overly opinionated, mean people with pens.
What advice do you have for those who take your opinion on a movie
"personally?"
Gore: Well, some critics do get personal. I know of one reviewer (okay, actually it was Rod Lurie, who is a critic turned filmmaker) who referred to Danny Devito's as the Penguin in "Batman Returns" as looking like a "pair of shaved testicles." That's over the line for me. Ultimately, I feel Film Threat has been brutally honest about movies but focused on the work. We don't run gossip about celebrities and stars and everything is based on the work that the person does. The "work" is fully open to critique, anything that person, director, actor, writer does publicly. But you won't see us writing about fashion, or the latest celebrity break up. I find that stuff, dull and uninteresting. But I seem to be one of the few that feels this way as celebrity lifestyles and gossip is of such great interest to the public at large. I must be out of touch. It's funny because at times, I don't even know which celebs are married to who. I don't keep up with that kind of news.
I feel badly when I see people act as if they have been personally
hurt when I don't agree with their opinion of a movie. It's just
a movie. People love to get opinions and advice about buying a
computer, electronics, cars, etc… When it comes to offering
advice about movies, for some reason, people get offended. I don't
understand it. I want to get advice about whether a film is worth
wasting an evening and twenty bucks. I do try to get a variety
of opinions myself if I am going to see a movie I don't know much
about.
Kane: What movie did you write your very first review on and where was it published?
Gore: I was writing
about film at the age of 12 when I first started buying movie
magazines. "Star Wars" was the first time I ever felt
interested in knowing who the filmmakers were and how they made
the movie. As for the first review, it was "Dune" in
the very first Film Threat published on February 6, 1985.
Kane: What review are you most proud of and why?
Gore: Most recently,
I would say "The Grinch." I did a complete Grinch
F.A.Q and broke down the problems with the movie. I would also
say "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace,"
the reason being that I am a huge fan of Star Wars. It's the movie
that got me involved in all of this. As I type this, I am in my
home office surrounded by Star Wars collectibles and a shelf with
all the 12-inch action figures. It took me days to write this
review since I was devastated as a fan. I was miffed by the varying
levels of quality - incredible effects and some amazing new ideas,
mixed with embarrassing acting and crappy dialog. I felt like
my childhood had been destroyed or someone just told me that my
dog had died. When my review appeared on Film Threat it got a
lot of reaction, both in favor and against. I got a lot of notes
from people who worked at ILM who were in complete agreement with
my assessment of Episode I's weaknesses. I learned later that
the ILM intranet, basically an internal company web site read
by all the employees of LucasFilm and ILM, actually re-posts all
the contents our Film Threat's weekly e-mail newsletter.
All the employees read Film Threat every week. I am proud
that our newsletter and site have become a must-read for the industry.
Our opinions seem to be valid to people in high places and I think
that means they respect us. They may not like our opinions but
they do respect us and that's all I can ask for.
Kane: What review are you least proud of and why?
Gore: Pretty much 80%
of what I write I am not proud of. Y'see, I'm a hack. I am not
the strongest writer or even the strongest reviewer at FilmThreat.com.
Ron Wells is our best writer and for that reason, he tackles the
majority of our reviews. We tend to agree most of the time, but
he is much better at articulating those concepts in text than
I am. I feel I am aware of my own weaknesses. I'm much better
at talking about film than writing about it, hence, my presence
on television. I think my one saving grace is that I am an honest
hack. I won't do what so many do on television which is summarize
the plot and marvel at the stars talking, I actually attack films
that are crap and I will praise films that are deserving of it.
So unlike the rest of the hacks out there, I just try to be honest.
I will tell you, I have paid the price for this. I am not the
most popular guy in Hollywood for taking this approach, but I
could not sleep at night if I stood before an audience and lied
or just sugarcoated everything. The negative reactions I get from
the industry, mainly studio flacks, is an occupational hazard
that I choose to live with.
Kane: Your book "The Ultimate Film Festival Survival Guide" (Lone Eagle) is funny and appears to cover all aspects of film festivals. What motivated you to write this book and how did you get so involved in film festivals?
Gore: I grew up in Detroit, so I could only go to festivals in my surrounding area as a kid. I went to my first at the age of 12. It was the Michigan Student Film Festival and I had entered a short Super 8 movie. I loved seeing the films there and meeting the filmmakers. I was hooked. I met an older filmmaker there named Douglas Chiang, a 16 year-old who made an incredible animated movie called "A Private Little War." It's strange that Doug ended up being the lead designer for Star Wars Episode I.
I then went to the Ann Arbor Film Festival as a teenager. I
also began going to the Toronto Film Festival every year as it
was a short train ride from Windsor just across the river from
Detroit.
I began covering festivals in Film Threat magazine, but it wasn't
just about the movies, we covered the parties and the growing
scene. For that, Toronto banned us one year, so I created a fake
movie magazine called "Film Form: The Art of the Cinema"
and actually got press credentials under an alias. It worked and
not only did we write about parties the second time, but we wrote
about how we crashed the festival. After that, they just accepted
us. Now it seems that the way festivals are covered everywhere
is in exactly the same style with the same irreverence as our
original article. I guess we were ahead of our time in that way.
Indie films broke big in 1989 when "sex, lies and videotape"
exploded on the scene (and proved these films could be profitable)
and an entire movement seemed to evolve from that one movie. When
I began attending other festivals like Sundance, Slamdance,
Florida, Chicago Underground, San Francisco, Cinequest, Olympia
and on and on, I noticed that a lot of filmmakers simply did not
know what they were doing. Other than showing their movie, they
weren't even quite sure what they were doing there. I saw some
amazing independent movies, by filmmakers that weren't particularly
savvy about the business. I think that's okay. Filmmakers should
focus on making great films first, but there was no resource to
tell them what they should do AFTER they made their movie. I was
tired of attending festivals and seeing a filmmaker with that
"deer in the headlights" look and wanted to do something
about it. So I spent two years doing research and writing the
first edition. I'm proud of the fact that the reaction has been
positive and the book has been adopted as required reading at
film programs at universities like NYU, the American
Film Institute among others and is recommended reading for
USC and UCLA. The second edition is almost twice
as thick with 100 new festival listings, new interviews and a
section on how to get a distribution deal that focuses on Ed Sanchez
and Dan Myrick, creators of "The Blair Witch Project."
I interview them and then put together a detailed chronology which
documents the beginnings of the Blair Witch from writing the treatment
to raising the money to casting to shooting to getting into Sundance
to a minute-by-minute account of how they sold the film for $1
million to Artisan. The section is called "The Artisan of
the Deal" and explains everything a filmmaker must do to
position their movie best to sell. I really didn't get paid much
to write the book, but that's not why I did it. I am really passionate
about doing whatever I can to help filmmakers out. I'm proud that
the reaction has been so positive across the board.
Kane: On the back of your book, it says you've been called everything from the "Gen X Leonard Maltin" to the "pit bull of journalism." How did you attain these titles?
Gore: These are
things that have been said about me in stories that have been
written about myself or Film Threat. As for the Maltin quote,
I guess I'm young and I talk about movies, so that's pretty easy.
As for the "pitbull of journalism" I think I do have
an attack dog approach at times that some find entertaining and
others find irritating. It's the price you pay for having an opinion.
Most "entertainment journalism" is hardly that at all.
It couldn't even be called "journalism." It's mainly
just press releases touting some new entertainment product. My
approach has always been to question, analyze and examine entertainment.
I know I'm not the only one who does it, but it is rare in our
over-saturated, pop culture-obsessed media. Some examples from
Film Threat might be:
- Crashing the set of Batman Returns
- Writing stories that compare Hollywood's hierarchy to the caste
system in India
- Exposing the American Film Market as a place where deals are
made using prostitutes as enticement.
- Detailing how anyone can get a star on the walk of fame with
10,000 signatures and a check for $$5,000.
- Getting presidential assassin John Hinkley to review "Taxi
Driver" from prison.
- Our expose on Harry Knowles showing how he wrote about great
unknown screenwriters, who also happened to work for him on his
web site.
- Being the first to break stories about indie movies like "Reservoir
Dogs", "Slacker," "Usual Suspects" and
many others.
- Exposing Quentin Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs" as a
shot for shot remake of an unknown Hong Kong movie called "City
on Fire."
- Suggesting that film festivals pay filmmakers.
Well, I guess based on that, you can see how we earned this
rep. I tend to take controversial stands in spite of the ire it
brings from colleagues and the industry.
Kane: Last year you decided to add the "Critic Doctor" column to your Film Threat web site. What was it that attracted you to publishing a column that often times attacks movie critics such as yourself?
Gore: I don't mind being attacked for my opinion. I think that's healthy and I enjoy intelligent discussion and debate. I love that kind of interaction. I do take exception to being personally attacked. I love that your column examines various points of view. What I also like is that you DO NOT remain on the sidelines and try to be unbiased. You actually interject your own opinion and keep a scorecard in a way. I think it's important for a diversity of opinions to exist. It's also important to respect or at least tolerate other views. I prefer reading something that I passionately disagree with. I find it stimulating and for that reason I am proud to present your column to our readers and I thank you for it.
|
|
Kane: How do you get loud people to shut up in a movie theater?
Gore: I'm bold when it comes to this. Upon hearing the first distracting chatter, I just give it a little, "Shhhhhh." If it continues, I turn it up to a "SSSSHHHHHH!" If it continues, I just say, "SHUT UP!" Generally, the unspoken support of the crowd will get the person to be quiet and realize that they're being inconsiderate. Honestly though, I like going to movies where the crowd is rowdy and the film can get you worked up so that you cheer or scream at the screen.
Kane: Do you eat popcorn at screenings?
Gore: Yes. I have to. In fact, I prefer to go to screenings where I can get popcorn. The worst circumstances to see a film are in a 30 seat screening room with ten other "critics" and no refreshments. I prefer to see a movie with a real audience (paying is best for an authentic reaction) with a bucket of popcorn on my seat.
Kane: If yes, buttered?
Gore: Never. I don't add butter. It's more like grease than butter. Even following my "no butter" rule, I'm still developing a gut.
Kane: If candy, what kind?
Gore: Raisinets. My favorite part of eating this stuff is to combine the popcorn and Raisinets for a new flavor. I know I'm not the only person who does this.
Kane: Where's your favorite spot to sit in a movie theater?
Gore:
I'll tell you precisely, on the
aisle about the 13th row for two reasons. One, if I want to get
up and go to the bathroom, I just get up and go. And generally
I have to during every movie I see. The reason is that I urinate
three times more than the average person because I was born with
only one kidney. It's incredibly rare to only have one kidney,
but I guess that makes me a mutant like one of the X-Men. So,
if I were on the X-Men team, you could call me the "Urinator."
The second reason is that most movie theater's acoustics are adjusted
based on the sound in row 13, so it just sounds better. Don't
ask me why, that is just the case.
Kane: When you go to a movie, with whom do you usually go with?
Gore: When I attend a movie to write a review, I generally go by myself or with Ron Wells from FilmThreat.com. However, when I arrive, I see the same people who attend screenings in LA, so I'm never alone. If I go to films for fun, a few times a week, I go with my wife. Very rarely will she go with me to an industry screening. She's too smart.
Kane: What three movies do you hate the most of all time?
Gore:
I really have a hard time responding
to the "of all time" types of questions. They're impossible
for me to answer. Off the top of my head, I would say: 1) Battlefield
Earth. 2) Yentl. 3) Anything by Joel Schumacher
Kane: What are three of your most favorite movies of all time?
Gore:
Three three-way ties! - 1) Star
Wars and The Empire Strikes Back 3) Slacker and Dazed & Confused.
3) Memento and Pulp Fiction.
Kane:
Have you ever been punched or verbally
assaulted (in person) by someone in the movie industry because
of one of your reviews? If yes, who?
Gore: Punched or
physically assaulted, no. Verbally assaulted, yes, fairly often
actually. I get e-mails from indie filmmakers saying, "You
are supposed to support independent films, so how could you give
my movie a bad review?" I believe that just because a film
is indie, doesn't mean it's good. And just because a film is from
Hollywood, doesn't make it crap either. I try to put things into
perspective, but we're not helping an indie filmmaker by encouraging
their lousy movie.
I guess the worst attacks have come from Kevin Smith via his web site. Smith was unhappy with some of the coverage he received from Film Threat of his movies Chasing Amy and Dogma. So he took it upon himself to attack me personally via the message board on his web site, even though I had not even written the review. It was pretty amazing. I don't know what possessed him to do this. In all my years of doing Film Threat and writing about movies, I've never seen a filmmaker go on the offensive so dramatically and so publicly. He then he went on to unload on Film Threat in an attempt to discredit everything we have done by assaulting the magazine, the web site, our newsletter, etc… I guess we must have hurt his feelings. It's bizarre too since Film Threat was the earliest supporter of Smith covering "Clerks" and even putting him on the cover of the magazine when "Mallrats" came out. I went back and reread the reviews of Smith's movies, which were written by Ron Wells, and they're very intelligent critiques of the films. I really don't have a problem with Smith, I loved "Clerks," however, I have mixed feelings about the rest of his work. In Kevin Smith's defense, let me say that I would rather see the worst Smith movie in the world 100 times, than see the best Joel Schumacher movie. What I like about Smith is that he takes risks constantly. "Dogma" was a huge risk - and it worked on many levels and failed on just as many others. But that's what happens when you take big risks. It's amazing to me that his core audience of teenage boys could see "Dogma" and actually be forced to think about religion. I applaud that, I think it's admirable. But his films beg controversy and discussion, so I'm miffed he would be offended by what I felt were justified critiques. He does seems stifled by sticking with the same set of characters for every film -- Jay and Silent Bob - characters that were in his first movie "Clerks" and who are also the main focus of his fifth movie "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" which is currently shooting. It would be as if Spike Lee were still making Mars Blackmon movies and had turned Mars into an action figure, the subject of a regular comic book and kept putting him in every film. It would get tiresome.
On the other end of the spectrum is Richard
Linklater. He is a professional and really interested in growing
as a filmmaker. I've had many discussions with Linklater about
his movies, some I love (Slacker, Dazed & Confused, Waking
Life) and some that I believe are not as compelling and even fail
in many ways (Newton Boys, Before Sunrise). Linklater told me
he prefers to read the negative reviews of his movies because
he actually learns something. He says that much of the time, he
learns more about the critic than his own work, but he enjoys
that kind of interaction. Linklater is someone who has a lot of
respect from myself and many others in the film community for
this reason. His latest film "Waking Life" shows a lot
of promise. It's incredibly radical as an animated movie. Linklater
pushes himself with every movie and aspires to always surprise
and do something different. He once told me he'll probably stop
making movies for a while in order to recharge his batteries and
get some fresh ideas. Linklater doesn't make movies as a job,
he makes them because he has a lot to say and it's worth listening
every time.
Kane: What question would you like to ask the Critic Doctor? Ask it and I'll answer it with the published interview.
Gore: Hey, you gave me a list, how about one for you? Here's a short list of three questions:
Gore: What has been the reaction to your column so far?
Kane: The reaction has been overwhelmingly positive. The critics actually love it (or at least like it). Most take the same stand you do - "enjoying the diversity of opinion." And Critic Doctor is finally starting to get some press coverage in such publications as USA Today, TechTV.com, The Des Moines Register and others. Critics like getting attacked and readers like seeing critics get attacked. It's a perfect package!
Gore: Who are your favorite critics to read, even when you disagree with them?
Kane: I don't really have any favorite critics. It really depends on what movie we're talking about and then I might have a favorite "review" at that time. Let's use Roger Ebert as an example. When I read his review of "Erin Brockovich," I thought he had popcorn for brains. Then he later comes out with a review on "Almost Famous" and he's brilliant! Let's face it. We're talking about a very subjective topic here. When it comes to movies, it all boils down to one's own personal taste. I just try to stimulate people's taste buds.
Gore: So, how do you shut someone up who is talking in the movie theater?
Kane: I have a secret weapon - my wife. What's funny is that she doesn't have to say a word. She simply turns her head and looks directly at the annoying individual (if he or she is close to us). Her glare will cut you like a knife. They get the hint and shut up.
-- CRITIC DOCTOR
|
|
|
|
|
|