A few weeks ago, Time Magazine's film critic Richard Corliss conjured up malice in his bowels and shat out a whopping two-page turd, a requiem for the Holy Day and all it represents. The title of his article is "The Claus That Wouldn't Fly." The crucified party? "Fred Claus," the new X-mas movie starring Vince Vaughn and Paul Giamatti.
"Emitting a stale odor from the first reel, Fred never engaged the audience of kids and adults that I saw it with. There were neither big laughs nor the kind of warmth you can feel when moviegoers are connecting with the stuff on-screen."
That's a fair jab, assuming Mr. Corliss did not view the film in question at a NAMBLA-sponsored screening. Otherwise, consider this: It's a given that victimized children are not the best judges of comedy. Some of them might not even find Woody Allen movies funny. Not only that, they generally tend to have a certain amount of disdain for the chubby man who invites children into his lap for photos, if only once a year.
As for Corliss, since when did the opinions of others, especially fucked-up kids, amount to a hill of diddly-squat to him? And why is he shoehorning words such as "phallic" and "pornographized" into an article about a Holiday movie for kids? That takes some twisted gonads, let me tell you. All right, taken in context, his implication is that behind "Fred Claus," there's a nasty, nasty writer. I don't know how anyone could write such a thing about Dan Fogelman, who wrote "Lipshitz Saves The World," but okay. Could be true, I guess. I haven't seen the film. But it's more likely, I think, that a nasty, nasty critic is working overtime to spread joylessness by campaigning against the true meaning of Christmas.
The Scrooge-y screwball then winds up for the pitch:
"I have a scenario for the never-to-be-made Fred Claus II: the elves unionize, realizing that they get paid even less than the 12-year-old Chinese girls who paint lead onto American kids' toys. If Willie and his pals were to call a work stoppage this Dec. 23, the labor movement could score its first quick victory in decades."In addition to trivializing the labor movement (and especially the WGA Strike) with utter stupidity, Corliss also seems to think it's okay to mock victimized 12-year-old Chinese girls. Again, this is a review about a holiday movie for kids! Did somebody say Ho-Ho-Ho Chi Minh?
Now, here's an excerpt from an article posted by Joan Walsh on Salon.com several weeks ago:
"On Tuesday I blogged about Rush Limbaugh's claim to have threatened a journalist at a national magazine into writing a more positive story about him. On Wednesday, New York magazine film critic David Edelstein (writing on his blog) suggested the journalist Limbaugh intimidated was Time's Richard Corliss, who wrote a 1995 cover story on Limbaugh (Salon reader Jim H. had also guessed the magazine in question might be Time)."Infighting amongst film critics? Christmas has come early this year. Mind you, I've never been an advocate of naming names (and there's a few I'd like to call Edelstein, believe me), but anyone who rips on a film critic, even if he himself is a film critic, is helping our cause. For that, Mr. Edelstein deserves a thank you wrapped in a neat little bow and stuffed in his waiting coffin. Much appreciated.
Let's say Mr. Corliss speaks the truth when he says that he was never threatened by Mr. Lamebaugh. If we rule out any sort of pay-off, this means the glow-job he gave America's most popular evil-doing, fart-mouthed shock jock was intentionally sycophantic. Maybe they're on the same page politically. Maybe, during pillow-talk, they discuss how much they hate "the gays." Maybe they go to the same church, I don't know. One thing is for sure. If Corliss is in league with a fat man in a red suit, it certainly isn't Santa.
