Review: Heckler
I think Jamie Kennedy is a talented guy… and I think that he reached a level at which his reach exceeded his grasp.
That said, he and a TV director/producer/writer named Michael Addis made a doc that is now running on Showtime that is more than a little worthwhile. It’s called Heckler and apparently, it’s sat around for a couple of years looking for some kind of distribution… which it never found. Apparently, it premiered at AFI in Los Angeles in 2007… and that was that. There are five Rotten Tomato reviews, only one from a major outlet (Variety).
But it should be seen.
In fact, for people in the business of being critical, it should be absolute required viewing.
It’s not masterfully made, shot, edited, or conceived. But wading through this content is worth well more than the 80 minutes, as it is not just about hecklers, as we know them from comedy venues, but Kennedy – stinging from the well-deserved slaughter of Son of the Mask, a movie so bad that I am loathe to bold it – makes the leap to the idea that critics, particularly film critics, are also hecklers of a kind.
While there are not more than a couple of lame attempts to interview comedy hecklers, heckling film critics get more of a chance to offer their position. I’m not sure that they really gave our breed a fighting chance, but the main representative for modern criticism is Devin Faraci… who has some smart stuff to say… and then turns around and confirms all the worst fears of internet criticism by attacking Leonard Maltin. And it wasn’t that he attacked Leonard, who had dismissed Devin’s site as being quote-worthy. It was how he attacked Leonard… and that he didn’t show the smarts to respect Leonard’s decades of commitment to the form and to then slam his opinion instead of making it personal.
But I digress…
The film is dominated by people who have been hurt emotionally by film critics. Joe Mantagna wants to kick some ass… and the film covers Uwe Boll actually kicking ass. And these critics of critics are often unfair. And they are also often right on target.
Two of the most intriguing moments take place as Kennedy reads harsh reviews of his work back to internet film critics… and we watch the critics squirm or smirk or try to appear placid. I don’t know these guys, but I do know that feeling. To sit with a filmmaker – and I’m not talking about someone on Jamie Kennedy’s on-the-run fun level, but serious filmmakers – when they know that you don’t like the work they just did is very, very, very uncomfortable. But it is when you have to sit in the soup of your creation… as the filmmaker does when he/she reads the reviews… that you find out whether you really stand behind the words you have written and offered in some form of publication.
Seriously… if you are prepared to really think about how the human side of criticism feels today, online and off, you need to see this imperfect, self-aggrandizing, fascinating film.
For the record, here is my “Worst of 2005” commentary about Son of The Mask:
1. Son of The Mask – How can one even describe just how bad this sequel is? Jamie Kennedy is to Jim Carrey as milk is to bourbon. Alan Cumming tries to camp it up in the villain role, but can’t even get a good bite of the scenery without being undermined. Traylor Howard was directed to sleepwalk through the film. The wacky story in which a second mask is found never leads to a second mask being used at the same time as the main mask. It’s not funny. It’s not charming. It’s not cool looking. It’s humor is gross without being gross out. It looks like it was cut by Baz Luhrmann’s editor on the very last day of a month-long cocaine bender. (Note: No inference that anyone is using illicit drugs is intended by that metaphor.) The film reached the heights of irritation, boredom and incompetence all at once. Impressive.
And here is the trailer for Kennedy’s film…
I watched this last weekend and have a couple things to say about it. As I may have mentioned before here, I did some standup on and off for 10 years and have something of a vested interest in the subject, although disappointingly I think Kennedy tossed that throughline away very early on and just focused on his own Son of the Mask reviews, of all fucking things.
I found it as riveting as Poland did, but also found a lot of it kind of cheap and unpleasant, from both ends: The critics Kennedy confronted were mostly straight-up douches, just awkward and seemingly lacking the courage of their own convictions, obvious D-tier blowhards or basket cases looking to make a name.
The two exceptions were Richard Roeper, who kind of held his own doing a variation of his trademark shtick, and seemed rather in on the joke. I wouldn’t doubt it for a minute if you told me once the cameras stopped, Awesome Roeper and Kennedy high-fived each other and said “Good show, mate.” The other exception is probably Faraci, who was clearly in on the joke and maybe even complicit in the overriding sensibility in his final spiel.
The rest, again, were obvious provocateurs and zeroes, like that antagonistic prick who needled JK endlessly, or the limp-dicks who got served accordingly on camera.
While I greatly enjoyed the contributions from many, many vets from across the board, from Maher to Pauly Shore to Mantegna to Carrot Top– and the film reminded me of Shore’s PAULY SHORE IS DEAD in its ability to attract interesting participants from A-list to Z-list…
The end result was kind of just sour grapes, myopically focusing on one almost objectively terrible folly, instead of truly focusing on the culture of “heckling” or its opposite, the give-and-take, risk vs. reward world of standup comedy.
The title is almost a misnomer and the “subject matter” isn’t really what’s promised… It’s far less an exploration of comedic or even critical antagonism, and mostly just Kennedy’s personal vendetta against, and hurt derived from, his harsher critics.
It’s endlessly interesting, especially for anyone who fancies themself any kind of “performer,” but I’d think any intelligent, sensitive (as Maher wisely opines) comedian, actor, filmmaker, what have you, would also understand critical criteria, and the option that critics themselves are PERFORMERS in their own way.
Kennedy spends most of the movie all aghast at the personal nature of the attacks in his bad reviews, but as someone who’s tried both onstage and (pathetically) on the Internet to make ANY kind of name, the juice IS in the attention. It’s ultimately odd that a shrewd performer and pop culture expert like JK doesn’t get this, or at least belabors the point for 80 or so minutes.
And I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t also point this guy is, by all reports, currently taxing JENNIFER LOVE HEWITT, so with that in mind, hearing his WOE IS ME routine kind of fell on deaf ears, because I would suffer almost any kind of public indignity to be in that position.
Come to think of it, I never felt much one way or the other for JK, but when you tell me he’s linked to JLH, he INSTANTLY becomes an ICON of POSSIBILITY to me.
Anyway, hope any of that made sense. I know I’m regarded as a TREMENDOUS asshole by many here, but this is one subject where I have a little experience and possible insight. ‘Caused I’ve tanked hardcore before, and I wanted a whole movie about that sinking, horrible feeling. Instead I got a millionaire browbeating a bunch of bearded basement dwellars about their online insults.
Nice reviews, both of you. I think the vicious nature of some criticism stems from personal insecurities. Its the age-old practice of tearing others down to make one feel better about themselves. Even the most successful critics probably don’t feel as successful as marginally successful people in the industry; most of them would gladly switch places.
“The title is almost a misnomer and the “subject matter” isn’t really what’s promised… It’s far less an exploration of comedic or even critical antagonism, and mostly just Kennedy’s personal vendetta against, and hurt derived from, his harsher critics.” Well put Lex.
The first half of the movie, dealing with stand up comedy and hecklers was interesting. The whole dynamic of the live performer dealing with the a-hole in the crowd who needs attention. But the second part of the movie is Jamie whinning about reviews of of a movie….’Son Of the Mask’ no less. Which he had to know it was a piece of shit. He is savvy enough to know a sequel without ANY of the talent on screen and behind the scenes was a bad, bad idea. Just a cash grab on his part. Granted some of the critics went to far with personal attacks on him, but it didn’t effect his performance in the movie like a heckler would in a live setting would.
The thing about the internet that’s weird to me are the many many sites DEDICATED to reviewing terrible movies. Like, these guy’s passion is watching the shittiest movies they can find, and then ripping on them in long form analysis.
Why why WHY would anyone do that? Why would you dedicate your site to being negative? It’s fine when sites review all kinds of movies and give a serious lashing to shit films, but I don’t understand the guys who want to watch nothing but bad movies and heckle them. It’s like some kind of reaching for superiority for guys who will never have any.
HECKLER has been out on DVD for several months.
There is a lot of good material in it. I particularly liked the sequence with Carrot Top. Although that scene didn’t go on long enough.
Other scenes, such as his confrontations with online film critics, just felt like bullying. Not to mention he resorts to childish and vulgar attacks on them. Not that they may not have deserved it, as that was what they did to him, but Kennedy should have been above that. He shouldn’t have stooped to their level.
And Faraci’s attack on Maltin was indeed uncalled for.
The film is worth looking at though.
thanks for watching my film guys, I can’t believe after working on this thing for 2.5 years, I read a nice review and can only focus on this line: “It’s not masterfully made, shot, edited, or conceived.” obviously disagree with that, but more importantly, I’m glad the movie affected you folks positively. However, the criticism of the movie I dislike the most, because I think it’s wrong, is the notion that the movie should have been an exploration of heckling only, and not made the observation that “hecklers” are all amongst us on the Internet, in print, everywhere. I think that’s what gives our film relevance and deepens the argument. Are we – as a society – now too critical in the worst sense of the word? Are we spending more time being bothered by a comedian like Carrot Top and less by more important matters (ex, why do more people in this country get outraged, and bothered by Paris Hilton than Kim Jong Il?) The vitriol delivered to guys who are making people laugh, is pretty interesting… but I would be bored if we just profiled Hecklers in the classic sense. They yell out at shows, and that’s kind of a shitty thing to do. I don’t think that subject is a whole movie, really. I’m really proud of what we did… I don’t think we did any bullying, and I honestly, I would have been fine if we went further. A guy who bashes your work on the Internet for all to see deserves to get a little bit back occasionally for his own “imperfections.” And we got childish and vulgar because that’s the way the world is. The whole film is meant to represent what’s going on in our culture… then when you see Elsewhere dance, you’ve already been assaulted by harsh criticism back and forth for 70 minutes… and you get a chance to just watch a piece of art… and shut up about it. Sometimes opinions are just not helpful… sit back and enjoy. If not, go find something else. I’m not talking about the professional critic – they should exist and we should have good ones on the Internet, in print, etc. But people should know that the non-stop attacks just beat up the really great artists, entrepreneurs, politicians, etc… and leave us with thick skinned people like Dick Cheney. Is that what you want?
Michael Addis
Producer/Director – Heckler
I only caught about the last third of this a few nights ago and had much the same reaction as Lex. Heckling and written criticism is pretty much apples and oranges. Heckling occurs during a performance and gives the performer the opportunity to defuse it in real time (unless you’re that hapless guy that was eviscerated by Jamie Foxx in that roast video someone posted recently — he never stood a chance); the print or online critic hones his insults after-the-fact and can decide not to address feedback.
I used to enjoy Kennedy’s candid camera knockoff (a cousin of mine was actually one of his “victims”) and thought Malibu’s Most Wanted was great fun, but I avoided Son of the Mask like the plague.
Michael: I wrote my above response before seeing your post. I’ll stand by my apples-and-oranges point, but I do agree that the broader scope you chose to work with probably makes for a more interesting film. I look forward to seeing the whole thing.
I actually caught “Heckler” the other night on Showtime as well…and really enjoyed it. As a “critic” (and I hate that term) I cringed at the yokels they talked to because those are the people who make me embarrassed to be termed a “critic.” They ARE a variation on hecklers who live only to show how much better and smarter they think they are than people on-stage or behind the camera.
However-and twitter has shown me massive insight into the psyche of the new breed “critic”-these are all truly frustrated wannabe filmmakers who are on huge power trips and swim so deeply in their own ocean sized egos that it’s no wonder they live alone. They’re mostly unbearable people.
And no, I’m not placing myself on a pedestal, I’m just judging from what I’ve seen both in real life, online (reviews and twitter/blog conversations) and in the way business is conducted. It’s become and continues to be head-shakingly ridiculous. And while I highly doubt todays “critic” think they live in a self-absorbed bubble where they, and only they control the fate of movies they champion or destroy, but it’s certainly coming off that way.
In terms of “Heckler,” I like the bare bones look of the thing, it doesn’t need to be a slick looking film. I also enjoyed the irony in it. Mainly, Devin Faraci making fun of Gene Shalit’s looks while looking frighteningly like a younger, fully-bearded Gene Shalit and Jamie Kennedy’s “poor me” schtick which in retrospect shows the guy hasn’t made a movie since “The Heckler.”
It’s definitely a must-see for people contributing on this and other blogs….gives you pause and makes you think before posting.
Good to hear from one of the creators of the film in question. In a few years as the Ashton effect takes full effect, online amateur film criticism will look prehistoric. Who wants to read some snarky nobody when you can get 1000 tweets about a films value instantly.
Welcome,Mr. Addis.
For the record, my qualifiers about the filmmaking were more genre classification than detailed critique. Your ambition was not the aesthetic of a film like Man on Wire or Chicago 10. You shot talking heads. You cut together talking heads. Nature of the beast.
Anyway…
Having lived online for over a decade, I don’t think The Ashton Effect is coming. People who are interested in criticism will remain interested. And all of us need to acknowledge that most people have long been disinterested in criticism… and are susceptible to marketing, whether a film is shit or Shinola.
And I think Addis is right… there are surely times when all of us who are professional know-it-alls should choose to stand down and shut up. But I have to say, it took me more than five years of being paid to criticize to get to the place where I was comfortable with that notion.
It has been made even more complex by The Web, as by opening myself up to criticism 24/7, I am conscious of the fact that whatever choice I make – review or don’t review… be brutal or be kind – I will be criticized by someone, often harshly.
This always brings me back to the early days of my public life when I asked Roger Ebert for advice about a nasty e-mail and he told me to just not pay attention to the hecklers (paraphrase). Other Traditional Media writers seem to have the same kind of myopia… which one realizes after time, is a survival tool… and a tool to keep some level of objectivity in the work.
There is nothing wrong with being a critic. The opinion part of it is the one thing that really can’t be criticized fairly by anyone. But the skill and insight brought to the table… fair game. There are bad movies… there will be bad critics. And it certainly is not a web-only issue.
Let’s hope for better all around.