Not so Serene: The Review That Burst a Beehive

In light of Friday?s release of ?Serenity,? it feels appropriate that LeesMovieInfo.com ? where so much controversy has boiled in the past five months over the film ? commemorate the event.

For those unaware, Lee Tistaert is the creator and lead critic on this website. In April, he posted a review of ?Serenity,? the new Joss Whedon film based on the short-lived Fox series ?Firefly,? after being part of a test audience for the unfinished movie. Bitterly disliking the film, Lee staunchly criticized its shortcomings. If you know anything about Lee?s grading habits, you know that he doesn?t often hand out D?s. ?Serenity? garnered a mere D+ from him. Let?s just say that this and other statements in the review were not music to the ears of thousands of diehard Whedon and ?Firefly? fans who came across it.

In wake of Serenity's release, I approached Lee with the idea of doing an article on the controversy over his early review. At first he was hesitant of my writing about the subject, as it may resurface negative reactions from before, but I assured him that my work would be just that ? mine. This is not Lee speaking through a trusty messenger. Rather, this is a fellow reader of Lee?s work who is concerned with how people mistreated his honest opinion. Although I feel it?s important to criticize criticism, I don?t feel it is appropriate for people to step over the line of decency into nonsense. And so it begins: a journey into the heart of the Serenity Controversy, which will go down in LMI history?

After the review was posted, links to his review (posted by readers) started showing up all over the internet, and Lee was bombarded with hate mail, most of which was so vulgar and confused (calling Lee everything from an ?idiot? to an ?ass?) that it was hard to take seriously (and over time, many message boards were devoted to bashing his ?unjust? opinion and general film taste). However, as more emails started to pour in, it was clear that he had used a beehive as a pi?ata. Maybe Lee should have looked into ?Serenity?s history a bit more so that he could have discovered the mighty Whedonites who vehemently defend Joss Whedon?s work beforehand. Or, maybe Lee?s just a ?moron? as one adoring fan so graciously labeled him. Go ahead and debate that.

In the meantime, I?ll say this: critics judge films based on what they see onscreen ? as they should ? and do not allow outside influences to change their opinions. Hence doing research on ?Serenity? was not needed, and the review he posted reflects an unbiased view of the film with neither adoration nor contempt for ?Firefly.? It?s interesting how certain hate e-mails claimed Lee was ?obviously biased? in his critique, yet most of those e-mails were sent from admitted fans of ?Firefly? who had not even seen ?Serenity.?

Although Lee saw an early version of the film, certain flaws in the film he cited are improbable to change. Over-the-top acting and shoddy dialogue ranked amongst the worst qualities of ?Serenity,? in his opinion. Editing may do wonders for films, but such basic elements of film cannot be touched up like technical glitches. Granted, Lee also went to great length to describe under-par special effects, which I will admit is an unfair knock. Many cited his negative opinion of the unfinished special effects as the most offensive part of his review, and I will agree that he should have vocalized a bit more leeway for unfinished effects. Despite that, those reading knew the entire time that Lee was referring to and criticizing an unfinished film overall.

As I always tell people, never consider an opinion without a grain or two of salt. But it has come too late. Some took the entire review to heart and expressed their disgust with Lee?s review via e-mail. However, finding e-mails with any constructive or objective basis were hard to come by. Here?s my favorite example of the many unconstructive and non-objective e-mails Lee received:

?Dear Lee Tistaert,
Please over look the next paragraph and skip to the next.

You stupid son of a bitch! You are such a jerk off. I hate you and wish you to rot in hell. You fucking suck!

I'm sorry for the last paragraph. I had to get that out of my system. I'm a diehard Joss Whedon fan and I disagree strongly with your review. First off it was incredibly biased. You hate television and are clearly judging Joss Whedon because he directed and wrote for tv. Yes he wrote for TV! So what?! He wrote for film too. I think everything you said about it looking too much like tv, was your biased point of view.

Next the film had two preview showings and sold out in mere hours. You are clearly wrong about the film not doing well. Joss is a genius and your pathetic objection will not stop him.?

This email illustrates the injustice Lee endured. Kicking off the message with offensive, juvenile jabs does not seem a very logical choice. Not only does it make the sender sound immature, the ?son of a bitch? and ?jerk off? references may take away the sting of the comments to follow. ?I?m a diehard Joss Whedon fan? presents the aforementioned bias many hate mailers had ? an expressed love for Whedon?s work without having seen ?Serenity.? This would not be a big deal if, in the very next sentence, the sender had not said that Lee?s review is ?incredibly biased.? At this point, we have a biased fan accusing Lee of ?bias.? Doesn't this discredit the sender?s credibility? Not entirely. If the sender admits to his or her bias but then offers objective criticism, then the statement is valid. However, that is not the case here.

A prime example of what should not be said is ?You hate television and are clearly judging Joss Whedon because he directed and wrote for TV.? Honestly, if you want to access this accusation, look at Lee?s review if you must. Nowhere in the article does Lee ?clearly? judge Whedon unfairly since Lee did not judge Whedon on anything but his artistic merits and demerits. The sender then continues with another mention of Lee?s ?biased? point of view.

The last sentence of the excerpt again throws the bias of the sender in Lee's face. If ?[Lee?s] pathetic objection will not stop [Whedon],? then why was this e-mail ever sent? If this was such an insignificant review, why bother lambasting its writer as a ?stupid son of a bitch? and ?jerk off? who ?should rot in hell? and who ?fucking sucks?? Perhaps the sender is afraid that others on the internet will read Lee?s criminally biased review and take it as gospel. However, such a crusade to rid the internet of subjective material would have to number in the millions or billions for even marginal progress to occur. The vast majority of the hate mail sent to Lee in response to his ?Serenity? review makes not one stride in the right direction of correcting what they perceive as wrong. Actually, it?s disheartening that there were hardly any valid criticisms of Lee?s criticism.

Yet another example of ineffective hate mail:

?So, I read your recent review of Serenity...though I skipped the midsection, as I sensed spoilers were approaching. I couldn't help but notice how much of an ass you are. I mean, how can someone who calls himself a "reviewer" be so harsh on an *unfinished* movie?... Clearly, you were biased against this film for reasons unknown (perhaps you find Joss Whedon's past work distasteful); because I've seen the TV show, and I know that the writing and direction will be excellent. Yes, I'm a fan; but don't dismiss me because of that. I'm only a fan because of the high-caliber of the original TV series, which, it is apparent, you are not familiar with.?

I?m not trying to beat a dead horse, but just look at this passage. Here you have even more interesting revelations: The writer admits to not reading Lee?s entire article and goes on to criticize him for not fully understanding ?Serenity? because of Lee?s lack of ?Firefly? knowledge. And because Lee saw only the movie he reviewed (and not its inspiration), he is criticized. However, think about it this way: if the writer says Lee?s opinion isn?t valid because he's unfamiliar with "Firefly," then how can the hate mailer?s argument be taken seriously when he or she did not even read the entire article?

Now, after seeing two examples of poor criticism, I offer perhaps the most reasonable response Lee received, which was blunt and to the point:

?My days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle...?

That was all that was written in the email. Not only does this make a bold statement to Lee in response to an unfavorable article, the sender doesn?t resort to name-calling or weakly attempt to prove Lee?s supposed bias. Further underlining the statement was the e-mail?s subject line: ?Clueless review ? Serenity.? Bravo to whomever confronted Lee with this e-mail, honestly.

Despite how I may be coming off, I do strongly believe that people should stick up for things that they believe in. Yet, I also believe this should be done in a smart, constructive way. Not only have I personally confronted people about their ill-conceived opinions, others have done the same to me. This is good to fuel healthy debate and smoothen jagged rhetoric.

Was Lee?s review inaccurate? Absolutely. But I dare to ask, was Lee?s review accurate? Absolutely. Was it neither accurate nor inaccurate? Absolutely. No matter what anybody writes, it can be challenged ? and it should be. If you feel as though toxic ideas are polluting the common good, by all means attack it, just not with childish language and unfounded criticism. The most effective criticism Lee got in this controversy was not even criticism. A faithful reader expressed his or her lack of commitment and belief in his writing with a single sentence. Such a strong reaction to one piece of work will make any dedicated and serious writer question his motives and intentions ? ?you are such a jerk off!? will ever elicit such a response.

As for ?Serenity,? the question remains: Was Lee right or wrong? You decide, then tell him why. Hell, go ahead and tell me what you think of this article (Please, though, I prefer to be called a ?jerk? rather than a ?jerk off,? if you could just make that one small change to the e-mail you?ve been drafting.). Fear not, I?ll be back with more on the topic of criticizing critics. Just wait?