As for the point you leave us with here, I’m unclear as to where you stand on the influence of critics. It’s pretty obvious when a critic is simply mimicking the tone or style of any given writer– there are plenty of wannabe David Edelsteins on RottenTomatoes,com, and one cannot see the trees for the forest of aspiring Harry Knowleses. But I also think it’s pretty clear within a paragraph or two whether these writers are going to have anything original to add to the mix, either in terms of style or thought. My antidote to bad writing: stop reading.

So is it the tone or the content that can “unduly influence the fortunes of a film”? (Presumably we’re talking about a negative opinion which may have a chilling effect on the movie’s box-office reception.) If it’s the content, should I be worried when I write a completely enthusiastic review of “Hairspray” even when I know of other writers also liked it? Should you be worried when you join in with others who loved “The Bourne Ultimatum”? Or should we be worried only about negative reviews?

I think a lot can be explained by the limits placed upon reviewers, by their editors or by their own disinterest in anything out of the mainstream, who end up reviewing the same four or five films everyone else does. And if there’s a whiff of disaster in the air before a film is released, I think a lot of reviewers receive this as accepted wisdom and never look much further. Then, of course, there is also the junket effect, which is designed to mass-produce similar-sounding ad copy that can be passed off as reviews.

But it all gets brushed aside by your final comment that “no one pays any attention to movie reviewers any more.” I don’t understand how critics can affect a movie’s box office performance and/or reputation and be irrelevant at the same time. You don’t write like someone who thinks he’s irrelevant, nor does your stuff read like it. And I think this is why we worry about these questions: because it does mean something. It does matter. And if people don’t read film criticism the way they used to in the days of Pauline Kael, maybe it’s because they see the average newspaper review and see no reason to. I think that’s where folks like David Edelstein, Manohla Dargis, Roger Ebert, Jim Emerson, Matt Zoller Seitz, D.K. Holm, David Hudson and all the excellent writers emerging from the online scene can still have an influence, where they can create and maintain new interest in the art of film.

I haven’t attacked Dr. Buckland’s book over and over, apart from it being brought up multiple times recently due to this situation. I do feel that it’s suddenly become a crime to have a darned opinion though. Any author should be so lucky to have people opine on their work, good or bad. At least people are reading.

Upon it’s release, I went into Buckland’s book with great excitement, as I do any book on Spielberg’s work. I didn’t find it to be as good as it hyped itself to be. That’s that.. It’s odd to me, however, that people continue to make it a big deal. Either you’re overvaluing my opinion, or you have a personal relationship that impels you to defend Buckland’s work against any who would dare to question it.

Further, my dislike of a book has nothing to do with Dr. Buckland or myself personally. I would imagine he’s a kind, intelligent man, and one I have never said anything about personally (I’ve never met him, so I’d be very wrong to do so.) I think people need to quit clouding the conversation with personal assumptions such as these. I didn’t like the overall presentation of the book, I liked Arlyn’s overall style (despite his plagiarism, at this point, we can assume that at least the majority of his work is his own). How is that so hard to grasp, and what’s the point further than that?

One last point: my Web site gave Dr. Buckland’s book a positive review upon its release. I didn’t personally review it, but as a publication, we gave it high marks. Nothing personal here, obviously. I think some folks on the ‘Net need to learn that plagiarism is wrong, and criticism is valid when someone publishes. It’s amazing how many out there are excusing plagiarist and admonishing valid criticism.

Mr. Awalt doesn’t like Dr. Buckland’s book–fine. However, he should stop indirectly praising Mr. Arlyn’s writing style, which is built upon a foundation of thievery and lies.

I’d like to make a couple of points (perhaps fine points) in response to your article about this unfortunate situation regarding plagiarism in which our site was an unwitting hub. Firstly, by no means have I ever “put down most Spielberg books as dry and overly intellectual.” Out of well over 50 published books on Spielberg films, biography, etc., I said this particular statement about one book, Warren Buckland’s. I also point out in the thread that uncovered Arlyn’s plagiarism that there is no direct correlation between my praise of Arlyn’s style and dislike of Buckland’s. That’s an assumption that justanotherfan made to make his inaccurate point. Looking at the work (both original and pilfered) on a micro level, sentence by sentence, of course there’s a high probability that there will be some passages of interest. Buckland’s book is not without any merit, but my point is that Buckland’s overall presentation in his book is very dry. He picks the films apart visually shot-by-shot in overtly descriptive terms, oftentimes without culminating to any real point or insight worthy of such lengthy, lifeless dissection. Such an approach, for me at least, sucks the life out of the films and makes them seem mechanical and not the living, breathing pieces of art that they are. Better to watch the films then wade through shot descriptions, especially when said descriptions amount to so little.

On the flip side, despite Arlyn’s failings when it came to parroting another’s thoughts and ultimately presentation of said thoughts, he did so using specific passages. This isn’t to say that his presentation is a carbon copy of Buckland through and through. If that were the case, then yes, my bolstering of one and criticism of another would indeed be amusing. But not all adaptations of the same source material are created equal, as many filmmakers have shown us. Some can adapt great works to bland, trying films, while others imbue their work with vigor and passion. Unfortunately, Mr. Arlyn’s passions and good intentions may have gotten the better of him.

Thanks for the opportunity to explain my position, since you mentioned it (erroneously) here.

Sincerely,
Steven Awalt
Editor, SpielbergFIlms.com