Comments on: DEAR ZACHARY: A response to comments

By: jsa

jsa — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:47:46 +0000

…….no wonder you review for spout……

By: Theodore

Theodore — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:33:36 +0000

Longworth’s review wasn’t really negative, it was just the only one that attempted to discuss how the form of that film related to the emotional aspect. But a lot of people just don’t get film criticism and any discussion of form is beyond them.

Also people just love to get mad. They like simply feeling the anger that watching “Dear Zachary” triggered and Longworth’s review asks them to think about the techniques that triggered those emotions, but people just love to feel mad and resent being asked to think.

By: James

James — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:39:00 +0000

My sympathies, Karina. I had similar queasiness about the film, even as I responded to its emotional twists. It’s a bit of a mess, but I think because of the subject matter, people who may not be used to examining a film “critically” get upset with anyone who doesn’t (appear to) share their grief and rage. I expect Kurt will take your review in the spirit in which it was intended, not as a criticism of the story he’s telling but simply in some of the methods he used. Impossible as it was for him to separate himself from the material, I think a lot of people actually like that it’s sloppy and heartfelt and emotional. It’s therapeutic for many people, not least of all the filmmaker.

By: T.Holly

T.Holly — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:04:25 +0000

Peter was being modest, this might make you feel better Em.
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117935933.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&query=dear+zachary

By: Emily

Emily — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:49:20 +0000

And journalists and film critics do it by writing articles titled “Dear Zachary: A RESPONSE to Comments”

By: T.Holly

T.Holly — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:41:32 +0000

That’s for politicians and advocates to do, not film critics.

By: Emily

Emily — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:39:13 +0000

T.Holly ,

Exactly! You got it! “Dont read what you cant understand.” Or comment on it for that matter.

I’ll spell it out for you since you missed the point COMPLETELY. I couldnt care less about the negative criticism– its the lack of ability to handle or respond to and defend your point of view that I can not respect.

-Stupid

By: T.Holly

T.Holly — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 02:40:00 +0000

Stupid people make this mistake all the time: they think negative criticism is telling of character, as a way of bullying the critic. Here’s my advice: don’t read what you can’t understand.

By: Emily

Emily — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:18:18 +0000

You rebuttal is ridiculous! A movie has many elements, part of which is what the viewer experiences and how it makes him or her feel–reviewers included. Let’s start with that point–the only one you even make.

Where did you present the argument for the other side as you indicate in your top? By excerpting a few unintelligent lines from an abundance–some more intelligent than others–of comments? Lame.

I was expecting an intelligent well-written argument to the popular opinion and all you had was a complaint about how “sick and mad” you are about trying to do your job. As for your lessons learned–you are wrong. Film reviews should ask one to question. And you should be questioned as well. People are entitled to their opinions, and to challenge yours. Have a backbone.

And by the way, I found your character to be more unlikable–and more telling–in your so-called response than in your emotionless review of the film.

By: Glenn Kenny

Glenn Kenny — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:46:26 +0000

Peter, if all one does is respond to how a film makes one feel, one tends to ignore the mechanisms by which one is made to feel. Just because something “works” doesn’t make it true. The end can be achieved by mendacious manipulation, by playing to one’s social conditioning…all sorts of ways that are less than “honest.” Karina felt played by this film, and as she explains it, she had good reason to. The very fact that so many of her detractors insist on seeing the film as some sort of holy object that cannot be even questioned let alone “reviewed” I think tends to strengthen her point.

By: Peter Debruge

Peter Debruge — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:22:37 +0000

Trust your emotions. I’m all for detached, intellectual appraisals of a film’s merits and all that, but the instant you discount how a film actually makes you feel, you’ve effectively removed yourself from the process and left readers with a task that could be outsourced to India or reassigned to a computer program five years down the road.

By: KatieHall

KatieHall — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:26:06 +0000

I mostly agree with what WOW wrote, thanks WOW for being specific. but, if the the maker of the documentary was trying to recreate his feelings, his perspective, on his friend’s death and Zachary, then..well he can do so. He can be (allowed to be) manipulative to achieve empathy for his point of view. Is it still a documentary if we don’t receive other points of view, I think so yes. Personally, I don’t think he had to work so hard, because of the tragic nature of the subject matter, the audience would still empathize, but perhaps he had to push it with editing and somewhat lying by omission, because that is really how it went down for him, and he is taking us on the same exact highly emotional and nonobjective journey he went through, step for step. It is manipulative, Yes, but maybe that is what actually happened. It was what he was actually feeling, what he and Zachary’s family was going through. Does it matter how you get there, just as long as you “get it”?

By: T.Holly

T.Holly — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:57:38 +0000

You’ve written the official hit piece on the film, so congrats, you’re no longer a virgin. How does it feel?

By: Branden

Branden — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:37:09 +0000

Karina,

Don’t listen to the naysayers. Not everybody is going to like “Dear Zachary”. I didn’t like it. The premise was good. The execution was terrible.

I will defend my opinion of the film. You have the right to your opinion, Karina. People need to stop being such pricks and stop harping on people who have differing opinions.

Don’t mind them.

By: aaron g

aaron g — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:29:41 +0000

karina, doesn’t this just come with the territory? so people criticize and attack you for your opinions–so what? you make a film and people will criticize and attack that, too. (people like *you*, for example.) expecting people to engage in civil, intellectual discussion *online* is like asking people to discuss politics in a civilized, respectful manner.

and no offense, but i think that “wow” explained why dear zachary is manipulative more than your review did.

btw, i’m an atheist and people tell me they’ll “say a prayer” for me all the time. people have been praying for me for years–yet i’m still a heathen. hmm, funny that.

By: Wow

Wow — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:23 +0000

I’m not writing this cursory paragraph to defend Karina or the movie, but I have to say that Karina’s review is right on target. I may not always agree with her analysis of all films, but I guarantee I always leave Spout.com with a new, honest, non knee-jerk (read, thoughtful) view of movies that I can’t get anywhere else. Let’s face it: Dear Zachary is a horrifying story. Metaphysically speaking, the behavior in the film verges on evil. You’d have to be a robot to not respond with emotion and feel defeated by human behavior. Still, it’s storytelling technique is manipulative in the sense that it attempts to replace emotion with loud music, a screaming voice, and quick cuts to intensify the shock. Maybe the editor’s/director’s intention was to amplify the double shock in the film, but to me it came across as over the top, condescending “can’t feel for yourself so I’m gonna do it for you with glossy editing, intensified colors, and loud noise.” In other words, the director had a specific goal in what he wanted the audience to feel - to the point of forcing it and therefore replacing the stirring emotions. More specifically, after talking with him at a party on night, he wanted the audience to feel anger, hatred and disbelief at the end. As a consequence, he tried to maximize those inner emotions of turmoil with certain editing techniques that came across as childish and amateurish when, in fact, all he had to do was let the story tell itself and allow the audience to feel those emotions instead of trying to turn them into an MTVesque ad. Thus, it seems to me that the director’s choices are, in fact, part of these very critiques aimed at Karina’s thoughtful analysis: the visual uttering of nonsense in order to rile up attention and stir up emotions using unthinkable visual techniques… Perhaps we need more crazies like Karina who have the courage to call Bullshit not only when they see it, but when they can actually write a thoughtful critique of why and how it’s bullshit wrapped in gold and still maintain a love/hate relationship with the story.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:09:42 +0000

Sorry about the backlash. But I’m glad to see you standing up for your place as a critic. I also support the review; until I read it I thought I was the only one with reservations about that film.

By: Todd

Todd — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:06:04 +0000

Hi Karina,

I spent much of last year reviewing movies and TV shows for Beliefnet and I received my fair share of “pray for him” comments. It’s a big world out there and people seem to really open up, both for better and for worse, when commenting online. I never knew WHAT the reaction was going to be so posting was always a trepidatious affair.

Keep up the great work…we need your perspective!!!

- Todd

By: 1/5 Oscawrweb Round-up

1/5 Oscawrweb Round-up — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:04:02 +0000

[...] • Karina Longworth responds to negativity over her dubious review of “Dear Zachary.” [Spout Blog] [...]