A LETTER TO ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY
by s.c.jones

Dearest folks at Entertainment Weekly,

I do not normally respond to film reviews or ever wish to write them myself.

I may occasionally promote an appreciation of certain films, but never anything that would fall into the unvarnished realm of contemporary film criticism with it's black and white view of good and bad. Gone are the days of intelligent film criticisms penned by such greats as Pauline Kael or Cahiers du Cinema.
Even poor Roger Ebert has been reduced to a thumbs up or down and a 20 second sound bite.

True film criticism should not be an absolute decree of yes or no.
The lost tradition held by the masters was a discussion of the art of film, the visual and the narrative, promoting the benefits of the work and planting helpful suggestions for the less successful aspects of the work. Criticism was not a negative and judgmental exercise; it was a constructive tool for both the artist and the audience. What passes as current film criticism has been corrupted into an audacity to tell the audience if a film is an absolute - good or bad. There is an assumption that the viewer is not adept enough to make his or her own decision.

My wife often says, "Sean likes every movie."
It's a phrase I coined myself. It's not actually true, but very close. I am always able to appreciate some aspect of a movie. Current trends in judging a film have obsessed on the narrative aspects of film (the idealess theory of cinema as a theatrical stage of actors talking). I can fully appreciate a film on it's visual assets, even if the writing and story are lacking.

OK . . . I'm actually maneuvering my way to a point of sorts.
Simply a response to a review.

I should start with a disclaimer: I am a huge Disneyland fanatic.
This may seem childish to some, but, I assure you, it is simply a childLIKE fraction of my self. It in no way influenced my desire to write this diatribe. . .

I received the newest copy of Entertainment Weekly in the mail today.
I was excited, as the cover featured Pirates of the Caribbean. I have seen the film, enjoyed it, and I looked forward to what was waiting in the magazine for me.

There was the nice production article. It teased me once again with the hope that Keith Richards might be in the 3rd film.
Then I turned to the review by Lisa Schwarzbaum.
It was a treasure trove of arrogant and frustrating misknowledge that jolted me from my comfortable summer vacation into scribing this rebuke.

Let us begin with her confession of incompetence as a paid champion of cinematic appraisal.
She admits to initially degrading the original Pirates film as, "a mirthless course of script beats and busy action sequences." She also scorned Johnny Depp's Academy Award Nominated performance as "a mild yo ho. . . glam rock vamping as pirate/Village Person."

BUT, after most of the human population of the planet Earth expressed their love of the film, she reformed her opinion; "I see now that I was wrong about the original: It's a thing of balletic grace, theatrical richness of character, and self-effacing economy of action . . ."

Dear Ms. Schwarzbaum,The first film was a abomination in your initial opinion, but you suddenly saw the light (and maybe the huge success) and reverted to frantic praise?

This is the floundering foundation upon which the public should commend their cinematic choices?

In respect to the newest film, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, you lapse into a familiar condescending rap; "Yes, indeed, Pirates 2.0 is a theme ride, if by ride you mean a hellish contraption into which a ticket holder is strapped, overstimulated but unsatisfied . . . "

Time for a little amusement education.
You are referring to is an "amusement" ride.
One that simply shakes you around and spits you out again. Your thinly veiled agenda appears to be a derogatory reference to the ride that Pirates is based on. A clever but patronizing mockery that is fashionable amongst elitists fearing purging from the wine and cheese set.

However, in your attempt to patronize, you are wrong. The Pirates of the Caribbean ride is not an "amusement" ride. It is a "themed attraction." What is that? What is the difference?

Watching his daughters at crass amusement parks, where the rides simply turned you around and made you dizzy (the amusement rides you are referring to), Walt Disney began thinking of a better type of ride that would actually tell a story and that adults could enjoy with their children.

Walt Disney had a vision of what would become Disneyland, the first THEMED amusement park. Financers and industry people thought he was nuts. He spent his own money and made a deal with ABC to build his park. He uniquely combined filmmakers with engineers and created rides that utilized a cinematic experience. Walt Disney created the first "Themed Ride" and "Theme Park."

By dredging up a misinformed comparison between the film and a simple "amusement ride," you have exposed an ignorance of the visionary and personal sacrifice Walt Disney put into creating a more satisfying attraction for the public, both young and old.

You deride the film, like so many other film critics, because it is based on a ride.

If you ever actually find yourself on the ride, you would realize, after two small drops, that it is a simple and slow boat voyage passing by well conceived scenes that tell a story.
It is visually comparable to a film. There is no shaking or straps. It is the most popular themed ride in the world.

I understand some "educated" folks cannot comprehend how a simple "ride" could stimulate passion in the masses. It is similar to the bewildered reaction by stoic reviewers who cannot comprehend the popular tastes of mass culture.

Ms. Schwarzbaum, you critiqued Mr. Depp for being a "Village Person" in the first film, and, in your ruling of the newest film, you demote him as, "an exotic Cage aux Folles bird."
This strikes me as a curiously homophobic. Perhaps a more macho man would have pacified your distaste?
Maybe John Wayne with his strange walk and waving hands . . .
oh. . .
I guess not.
I suppose almost every female I know, including my 9 year old daughter, are amiss in their attraction to Captain Jack Sparrow? Is it not a bit heroic that he is giving a new generation a glimpse at the myth of Keith Richards? A pathway to an appreciation of that old group . . . The Rolling Stones.

The biggest grievance you seem to have with the film is the lack of character development. Did we see the same film? I witnessed several extended scenes of dialogue that developed all the characters beyond the first film and leaves the viewer anticipating the next chapter.

Will Turner and Elizabeth are not simply "whirling teacup figurines" (is that yet another derogatory reference to theme parks?). Will Turner has a difficult relationship with his condemned father. Elizabeth is boiling over with passion, and her reluctant engouement towards Jack Sparrow creates a great setup for future tensions with Will.

Are you completely ignoring the invaluable visual impact this film has? You pass off the visual candy in this film as "the very picture of ick by teen standards." Why must the genre of fantasy be constantly shelved away as a childish balderdash?
Why deride a film for monetary extravagance (implied in your comment that the next film will be a"necessarily staggering, ostentatious extravagance as to bankrupt all but the most iron-walleted of Hollywood producers")?

Shouldn't we celebrate the hard working artists who were supported and allowed to stretch their imaginations so far? Walt Disney had a passion for putting his own money on the line for a vision he believed in despite detracters. This gutsy modus operandi of placing quality and artistic achievement above monetary worries is sadly lacking in the cautious utility atmosphere of today.

Why would any film critic chastise a studio for supporting artists with financing? Adversly, why does the "sell out" mentality that profit devalues the artistic acheivement, proclaimed by punk rock youth in the 70's, find it's way into critical thinking?

I applaud the fresh addition of Pirates to the standard fair given to us every summer. It seems to me your criticism is prejudiced by the tired cosmopolitan razing of the Disney product name.

I suggest you read the well argued criticism by Greil Marcus, "Forty Years of Overstatement: Crtitcism and the Disney Theme Parks," where he exposes the lack of substance found in the merry glee that devotees possess using this discontented "easy put down."

You speak of Pavlovian response; it seems to me that far too many self proclaimed intellectuals drool and drop reason at the chance to mock Walt Disney, families, and good natured fun.

Actually, I do enjoy reading your reviews, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Thank you.

s.c. jones
artist and art educator

RETURN TO