Wednesday, February 20, 2013

The Hypocracy of Peter Travers



         I realize that this is no longer timely, but there is something that’s been bothering me for over a month now that I just have to vent about.  For the second year in row, Rolling Stone critic Peter Travers has kicked off his annual “top ten list” column with an absolutely moronic statement.  Is Travers’ ranking of films valid?  As much as a top ten list can be – and there are good arguments for both sides of this debate – but there is nothing about a list featuring Tom Hooper’s Les Miserables that is, as Travers puts it, “pure rock & roll.”  Last year the mustachioed reviewer, who’s been with Rolling Stone since 1989, felt the need to begin his best of the year article with the bold declaration, “Screw Oscar,” before proceeding to explain why Drive (a worthy choice) was the best movie of 2011 for any true film fan.  He then went on to all but openly declare that academy members and critics were somehow attempting to marginalize the film’s availability and public perception while insinuating that his was the true voice of the masses.
          Okay, perhaps I’ve oversold his likeness to Lenin a bit, but my point remains.  Travers is a film critic.  He is not, as he would have you believe, a rocker who happens to review films. There is nothing particularly Rock n’ Roll about him.  He worked at People for four years.  He works for Rolling Stone, which is no longer a rock magazine.  That distinction went away long before the publication featured Brittany Spears on the cover.  It’s a culture magazine with a Rock legacy, and much like fraternity legacies, sometimes they don’t live up to their past credentials.  There’s nothing wrong with Rolling Stone.  I’m a subscriber, and for the most part I enjoy their content, but its writers’ continued insistence that RS is the bastion of all things counter-culture is just plain inaccurate.  Travers is a good critic, but if he continues to anoint himself as some sort of Jim Morrison of movie criticism he’ll need to drop his affection for Steven Spielberg.

2 comments:

  1. There is nothing "counter-culture" about Rolling Stone anymore.. at all. Travers is as mainstream as critics come. But I may agree with him about Drive (which btw there is a video game out now that's loosely based off the film - Hotline Miami). That and Tinker Tailor got snubbed by the Oscars last year, although I really don't think we should take the Academy Awards that seriously in the first place. There is too much politicking. But they're still fun to watch.

    So Travers trying to de-throne the Oscars is sort of a funny concept, since neither really deserve the throne in the first place.

    Hey Sam, have you ever checked out the site Reverse Shot? http://www.reverseshot.com Their review of Lincoln is excellent. And have you seen Side by Side yet? We just watched that recently and thought of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lauren,

      I haven’t seen it yet, but it certainly looks interesting.

      Here’s the thing about Oscar. He’s often wrong, but he is what we have; a singular voice from the industry proclaiming that these films were believed to be the best of their year by the standards of the time. That in itself is valuable. We can look back and see that Citizen Kane, The Lady Eve, The Devil and Daniel Webster, and The Maltese Falcon were all passed on in 1941, and that How Green Was My Valley took home that year’s primary statue. Yet we have those other films, and retrospect, to look at and admire, and the conversation of “what were they thinking” to amuse us. Are the Oscars political? Of course. And performances and films that were not ultimately the greatest of their year will always win. It’s their record that’s important, even if it isn’t a particularly accurate one. The industry proclaims that great films should be awarded, and that in itself is noble, even though they often get it wrong. No one who studies or appreciates films seriously at any time in the near future will believe that Valley is better than Kane, but in 1941, enough people were convinced it was so…Even if Hurst made sure Kane didn’t get all the accolades it deserved.

      As for Rolling Stone, I will continue my readership, content with the knowledge that it was once something more, and that now (as the athletes say) “it is what it is.” Travers and his contemporaries are entitled to their opinions, and for the most part are at least correct in those. 200 critics pick from 250 films and often come up with the same 15 or 20 for their “best of the year” lists. That’s pretty good coverage of the issue. They may not always nail down the exact best film, but again, their effort is noble.

      Delete