Editorial: Kevin Smith Is An Enormous Fraud

By Josh Tyler: 2006-07-31 00:00:00

One of the biggest benefits, for me personally at least, of our new television component to the site is that I suddenly find myself a lot more hooked in to what's going on around me. There's a little more to my world than just movies now, and that's a good thing. I once read an article from Roger Ebert where he admitted that he never watches television, since he's too busy watching movies. So presumably, when the new Simpsons movie comes out he'll have absolutely no idea what he's watching. I don't want to be that guy. If you don't have a well rounded idea of what's going on in pop culture (and you're not an institution like Roger Ebert), then you've probably got no business reviewing movies.

The drawback to my newfound awareness of what's going on with the small screen, is that I'm aware of things that piss me off. Things like this: According to his website Kevin Smith is guest hosting on "Ebert & Roeper" while Roger is out sick.

Now the problem with this isn't that Kevin will do a lousy job. Quite the contrary. The guy is a master communicator. When he talks, people listen. He'll probably be brilliant. The problem here is that by doing it, he's making himself a total hypocrite.

Kevin Smith reads what people write about him. All of it. Even what we write about him here. That's no revelation. But here's something I learned about him recently: If you're a film critic and you want to screen one of his movies, you'd better start puckering up in advance.

A few weeks ago a Clerks II screening was held here in Dallas. I'm not bragging, that's just the way this game works. Eager to cover Kevin's latest, I RSVP'd for the screening to our local public relations rep here in Dallas, and then received a confirmation that I was on their "let him in" list. I thought everything was fine, until the day of the screening when I was contacted by the same rep and told that unfortunately, I was being uninvited from said Clerks II screening.

In four years of attending press screenings I've never had this happen. Cinema Blend isn't AICN, but we are in Dallas, which makes us sort of a little fish in a little pond. Usually that means we have no trouble getting invited to most of the press stuff that happens in town, even with the studio bias against the internet that beats so many of us down. Somewhat confused, I asked for some sort of explanation, and was told that the screening was full, and they wouldn't have room for me.

Except the screening wasn't full, according to reports I got from other people who attended. Instead, I was being barred from the screening because it was me. What had I done to earn the ire of the folks running Clerks II? In my preview comments on the film I said this: "After chickening out and buggering off from more challenging projects that might have stretched and challenged him as a filmmaker, Kevin Smith returns to the movie that made him famous in the first place by sequelizing it. I can't imagine a bigger give-up." Of course I also said this: "love the guy, he's got amazing talent." Somehow though, I think the first quote was the one that caused the problem.

A little asking around confirmed that Smith does indeed have a reputation for barring critics who say things he doesn't like from screening his film. And I'll confirm it again. It looks like he barred me. Still, I wasn't going to mention it. When I finally saw Clerks II I loved it. I still think it's a step back for his career, but Kevin had only deprived himself of good PR by refusing to let me see it, and I wasn't going to play the whiny, over-privileged critic spasming because he didn't get the red carpet rolled out for him.

Kevin's appearance on "Ebert & Roeper" changes things. Now he's stepping away from being a filmmaker, and becoming a critic… a profession he clearly has regard for. Sorry Kevin, you're out of line. If you're going to do the job, at least have some respect for it. The guy clearly can't take dissenting voices, and if he can't take the heat, then what the hell is he doing in the kitchen? Kevin doesn't want critics reviewing his film, but he's perfectly willing to play critic and critique the films of others. Something is seriously wrong here.

I like to think of Kevin Smith as one of us. He seems like an affable guy, the sort of dude you'd like to spend an afternoon hanging out with. But I'd also like to think he has integrity, and now I'm starting to doubt it.

Latest Headlines:

Nottingham Plot Explained... Sorta

The Witches On Screen In Stop-Motion!

HBO's Rome Revitalized In Film Form

Early Draft Of Beverly Hills Cop 4 Revealed

New Crime Thriller Is Made Of Straw

Is The Sherlock Holmes Set Cursed?

Scorsese Telling Falcon's Tale?

Satellites Orbit Around Meryl Streep And Slumdog Millionaire

X-Files Producer Wants To Make Another Movie

Frasier Dances His Way Into Fame

Comment on “Editorial: Kevin Smith Is An Enormous Fraud”

Note: This website is not meant for use by minors. The views expressed in the comments section below are not our own. This section is intended for discussion of the topic in the post above. Disagreement is encouraged, however comments which attack, insult, or threaten the author in a personal manner won't be published. Similarly, comments that we deem to be poorly worded, or wildly off topic will also not be approved and may be mocked. For free, uncensored, unfettered, and possibly dangerous discussion visit our forum.

Scott Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 09:45
Interesting points. I wonder, though, why a filmmaker can't also be a critic. Now, if he served as a critic on his own film, and expected us to take it seriously, that would be hypocritical. However, I don't see how his opinion of other peoples' movies is invalid or hypocritical just because he's also a filmmaker.

It would be hypocritical if he regularly hyped his own films in the same breath as critiquing others' work, and I don't think he'd be very popular in the film world if he did this kind of thing on a regular basis. I think this is fine though. It's just a guest appearance, he's a good entertainer and communicator, and he no doubt has interesting opinions about movies.

By the way, excluding you from the screening was pretty lame. That WAS bad form on his part.

Josh Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 10:32
A filmmaker can also be a critic. I'm fine with that. The problem is that Kevin won't let critics critique his films, but he's perfectly willing to get on TV and play critic to critique the films of others.

It's incredibly hypocritical.

Greg Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 13:23
What's the point of making money and getting famous if you can't (symbolically of course) bitch slap people you don't like? I see no problem with Kevin not allowing you to screen his movie...get over it..

ken burns Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 15:29
Yeah! I agree with Greg

Reading editorial propaganda is much better than reading an informed opinion.

joe Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 21:40
Maybe he barred you because you said something negative about him.
On the other hand, maybe he barred you because everything you've ever written makes you come off as a gigantic asshole.

You are notorious for trashing movies before even seeing them. (Case in point, your negative comments about Clerks II)

Josh Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 22:57
First, it's completely untrue that I'm "notorious" for trashing movies before I see them. I'm not notorious for anything... being notorious would imply notoriety of which I have absolutely none.

I'm a nobody.

Second, I SAID that he probably barred me from the screening because I said something negative. Thanks for repeating back my words as if you came up with something original all on your own. Genius stuff.

So far, you've all completely missed the point.

I don't care who Kevin bars from his screening. I don't care if he bans me. Unlike a lot of people in this gig I can't be bought or coerced.

If I did care, I would have bitched about it when he did it nearly a month ago. Instead I said nothing, and went on to talk about how much I LIKED Clerks II when I finally did see it.

The issue here is not whether or not he should be allowed to bar critics from reviewing his film. My point is that if he's not going to allow people to negatively critique his film, then he has no business evaluating the movies of others... unless he plans to go on Ebert & Roeper and say nothing but lame, fake, positive things. And if he does that, then he's not doing what they're bringing him on the show to do.

antny Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 00:51
sounds to me like you could shorten this up......"i'm mad they denied me from seeing the special screening" quite simply.

by the by....Clerks 2 was SLAMMIN!!!
peace out fellas

Josh Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 00:55
Except for one thing Antny... I said exactly the opposite.

Thanks for playing though.

At worst, I'm slightly irritated at being lied to, but mostly I'm dissapointed by the hypocrisy of a guy I sort of used to respect.

Joe Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 11:01
You contradict yourself. If you're a nobody, then how would he know that you said bad things?
Let's just say you have a bad habit of saying negative things about movies before you've seen them.

Josh Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 11:09
I wasn't aware that whether or not Kevin Smith has read what you write about him was the key determiner of fame.

Incredible.

But whether or not I have a propensity for writing negative things about this film or anything else for that matter has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this discussion.

Carson Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 12:48
I found this article through a search and have no clue who Josh is and what he is or isn't "notorious" for, but it really does seem like many people here are completely missing the point. I like Kevin Smith, and I will probably watch him on E&R, but if it is true that he personally will pull a critic's seat just because he thinks they will give his movie a bad review, then I think hypocrite is an appropriate accusation to make. (I do, however, believe that "Fraud" is a bit strong, especially for the title, but I suppose that is one of the reasons I clicked on the story in the first place)

ken burns Says:
August 2nd, 2006 at 09:47
Josh, to be fair,

"whether or not I have a propensity for writing negative things about this film or anything else for that matter has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this discussion."

this statement is false. you originally wrote,

"What had I done to earn the ire of the folks running Clerks II? In my preview comments on the film I said this: "After chickening out and buggering off from more challenging projects that might have stretched and challenged him as a filmmaker, Kevin Smith returns to the movie that made him famous in the first place by sequelizing it. I can't imagine a bigger give-up." Of course I also said this: "love the guy, he's got amazing talent." Somehow though, I think the first quote was the one that caused the problem. "

then followed with news of smith on t.v. as a critic.

then you wrote this,

"The guy clearly can't take dissenting voices, and if he can't take the heat, then what the hell is he doing in the kitchen?"

which continues the argument that he cancelled your screening because you wrote something negative, which would then prompt your argument for smith's lack of integrity.

so, writing negative comments does have an impact on what is being discussed.

Josh Says:
August 2nd, 2006 at 09:53
Yes Ken, the fact that I said something negative about Kevin Smith is part of the story.

But whether or not I say negative things with regularity really has nothing to do with the discussion.

Sometimes critics are negative, sometimes they're positive. Anybody who never says anything negative isn't doing their job... they're just kissing ass.

The point here is that Kevin can't take the negative, but he's perfectly willing to dish it out. That's hypocritical.

ken burns Says:
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:10
granted you are entitled to write your opinion, that is what people come to the site for.

i think the argument originated because you expressed negativity - before you saw the movie. while one can argue the merits of determining a film's worth before even seeing it, everyone does it. it just usually comes in the form of "that movies looks stupid." but i think it's a double edged sword for a critic.

Josh Says:
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:25
Again though, none of that is really pertinent to this particular topic and I refuse to be dragged into that discussion.

Otherwise, my response is if you don't like it, don't visit this site. Go read studio press releases instead. You'll get nothing but blissful positivity completely free from original, honest thought there. You can read all about how Little Man is the best movie of the year. End of subject.

Start a topic on our forum if you want to discuss that, or try to find something that's actually relevant to this topic to discuss here.

Ken Burns Says:
August 2nd, 2006 at 16:50
No thanks, i've looked through the forums and it doesn't seem very inviting.

my last comment was not meant to criticize you, but assess the situation. thank you for the snooty response.

Greg Slone Says:
March 17th, 2007 at 12:18
Kevin Smith is quite willing to trash other people's films. Just watch his "Evening With" and "Evening Harder" Q&A DVD's. He trashes the Lord of the Rings triliogy apparently for the sole fact people call IT the trilogy instead of Star Wars now. He trashed "Passion of the Christ" without having even seen it. And yet he has this flame war going on with critic Roger Moore for his negative comments about his own film career. I like Kevin's films but geez, dude, if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Back to Editorial: Kevin Smith Is An Enormous Fraud

Editorial: Kevin Smith Is An Enormous Fraud

Comment on “Editorial: Kevin Smith Is An Enormous Fraud”

Leave a Reply