Thursday Nights with Leonard Maltin
For the past few weeks, I’ve been attending lectures by film critic (and human Care Bear) Leonard Maltin. They are always followed by a screening of an upcoming film and a Q&A with one (or more) of the people who made it. So far, I don’t think I’ve seen many great films in the class. But I do like its purpose. I’ve figured that I’m enrolled in too many classes and that most of them lie when they tell you how many units they take. I don’t have a single 2-unit class that doesn’t take 4 or more. I haven’t slept in over a month, and there’s hardly a weeknight when I’m able to be home before 11 or 12. (That’s cute. It’s usually 3 or 4.) So Maltin’s class is a refreshment in a sense.
For one, there’s virtually no work to be done. Two papers and a final and that’s it. And the time is mostly enjoyable, too. I may not agree with many of his (and most of my classmates’) views on film. But that is one of the most popular film electives we have here, and what Maltin does with it is very commendable, for lack of a better word. More than anything, he wants to inspire his students — most of whom are not film majors and consume media just as quick entertainment — to find pleasure in the act of watching the film, and appreciating it by what it is. I could go on but it would take far too many paragraphs.
I’ll focus instead on a specific and unusual remark Maltin made a couple of weeks ago.
He commented on a strange case that has not been given much attention by the media, generally speaking. It involves the famous documentarian Michael Moore, the Traverse City Film Festival (created by him), and a company called BL&S, which pretty much transforms any installation into a movie theater. Maltin apologized for having to talk about that, but he felt compelled to, despite feeling uncomfortable with the whole thing.
It seems that Moore owes BL&S some money.
TCFF, his festival, had hired their services in multiple occasions in the past to provide the installations for the festival. Eventually, however, TCMM seemed to be more and more in debt, and was never able to pay for the services on time. BL&S was understanding, and offered alternatives to them. They even lowered their rates, and maintained a reasonable dialogue.
Then something went wrong.
Frankly, the whole thing is a mess and I don’t have enough space to list how the events seemed to have happened step by step. It also doesn’t do anything for my point. (But if you want to read more, here’s a good source: https://bit.ly/2psQAjz). The thing is: at one point their relationship was no longer pacific. Not having received all of the money by a certain deadline, BL&S sued TCFF. The festival in the other hand replied that, in fact, the reason why they were not paying the other company was that they were provided with a very unsatisfying service.
Enters Maltin.
He attended a Q&A at the Toronto Film Festival where Moore, screening his new film Fahrenheit 11/9, “slandered” (Maltin’s words) BL&S. But Maltin knows the owners, and respects not only the work they have done for Moore’s initiative, but also for many other festivals around the country — they’re known to be miraculous. It doesn’t help that in the lawsuit that BL&S filed against Moore’s festival, it is mentioned that Moore threatened to “to distribute false and defamatory stories to harm BL&S’ good name and business relationships.”
Maltin was pissed. With good reason, as it seemed to be already happening. I don’t have much more to say about that. I don’t know any more details of the story. Here’s what I have to comment on:
I googled the case during the lecture. I didn’t find any results from the traditional trade publications: whenever they would mention Moore, it would be to say something about his new doc, which condemns the Trump presidency. The results related to the story that did come up, however, were pretty much all articles in right-wing tabloids condemning the documentarian, and exploring the whole carnival with glee.
I mean, seriously?
Come on, guys, I know that Moore has exposed a lot of utter bullshit in the past, and is generally respected in film-related environments. I don’t doubt that his new doc has a lot to say about Trump’s presidency — there’s definitely a lot to uncover there. But what kind of privileged pass are we giving him? Why was IndieWire the only traditionally liberal trade publication to say something about it, and only one week after the tabloids had said all they wanted about the matter? Why is everyone avoiding to point the finger to someone who seems to be doing the wrong thing? Just because he’s in line with your political agenda?
There has been this masturbatory fixation with writing everything that’s fucked up in Trump’s regime. If he sneezes, The Rolling Stone will be there to make a comment on how out of tune it was. It’s honestly gotten to a point where something like “covfefe” is breaking news. How CAN it be breaking news? If you want to criticize him, do that in a legitimate and adult way. There’s plenty to be said. It also doesn’t help that such publications don’t like dialogue — they deal in absolutes. If even Steve Bannon and Ben Shapiro have the guts to show up on Bill Maher’s show, why can’t liberals stop pretending to have this upper moral standpoint and have a civilized conversation and rationally win the argument with exactly that — arguments?
It’s honestly a shame that no one else has covered the story. Fahrenheit 11/9 may be a hell of a doc. (Or not, I haven’t seen it.) But Moore seems to be acting like a dick. Let’s not mix them up. This gratuitous protection based on political convenience directly harms our duties and ideals as liberals.
It feels like just plain dishonesty.