Here's a review from someone not involved with or related to
anyone associated with this film:
http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/screengrab/archive/2009/03/16/sxsw-revie w-quot-my-suicide-quot.aspx
Your link doesn't work.
BTW I don't know what this review says but I guess it's safe to assume it's bad, since I've seen dozens so far that are good. So...are you saying that every single one of them is "from someone involved with or related to" the film?
Hmm...where have I heard that before? Oh, yes, whenever a film gets overwhelmingly good reviews. The person who writes a bad one then comes on IMDb and claims that all those people are associated with the film. It's a shame. A statement like that throws the reviewer's credibility out the window. Ironic, eh?
-----------------------------
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
Link corrected. Thank you for the notice.
What strains credibility is when one person is responsible for 50% of the board messages on any particular film. You have to wonder what that's all about. And as for "dozens" of glowing reviews, is that a bit of hyperbole? Do tell. I'd be happy to read them. The film's own website only lists two. I've found a grand total of three, including the one that I reference. For the record, I am not the reviewer. Having not seen the film (yet,)I felt it was interesting to see a dissenting opinion. I would think someone in the reviewing "business" would not have a problem with dissent.
Ironic, eh?
Wow, where did that come from? Who has a problem with dissent? Personally, I think negative reviews are wonderful. They help give perspective. I never said I had a problem with dissent.
What I DO have a problem with, as I stated (and you conveniently ignored) was to preface the presentation of a bad review with "Here's a review from someone not involved with or related to..." the film. That's a pretty smarmy assertion to make and you know it. Talk about lack of bias and impartiality. Your post would have carried MUCH more weight had you simply posted the link. THAT would have been the intelligent thing to do. But alas, you chose to slam the people who liked the film at the same time.
You know the expression "don't shoot the messenger?"
Let's say you did not like a film and I posted a link to a good review and titled it, "This is the only review that carries any weight." That would pretty much discount my credibility as well, wouldn't it? I would hope you'd have a problem with that.
Do you understand the distinction I am making? Posting a link to a review is one thing. Introducing it to the audience by making the assertion that all the good reviews are posted by people associated with the film has absolutely nothing to do with the review itself at all.
My post had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the review. After all, I didn't even see it. My comment was related to your comment.
Where are you looking for reviews? There are several here on IMDb. There are many at various blogs that were written after Sundance and SXSW. There are several at b-Side. I was also considering the word-of-mouth and comments from people I ran into at both festivals when the name came up, or someone in line asked, "what did you see?" I never read or heard anything negative.
As for me, I challenge you to find any connection I have to this film other than my enjoying the work of one of the actors in it and the fact that my best friend committed suicide about two years ago.
-----------------------------
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
One of the great things about IMDB is the absolute openness of the site. One of the worst things about IMDB is the absolute openness of the site. It lends itself to abuse. I have found this to be especially prevalent when it comes to independent film. There's nothing to stop a participant from logging in and puffing up a film to epic proportions. Check out the reviews/boards for any independent/"non-mainstream" film. Look at the ones rating it a "10." Then note how that person has never, EVER posted on any other board or film. Or, follow the trail. See what other films they have "reviewed." Sure enough, you'll find 'coincidences' in the cast or crew. Sure, I'm sure there are those who have been impacted by a film to such a point that they just have to comment or are fans of an artist, but let's be real. While you obviously have a body of work, you KNOW what I'm talking about. You know it happens. A lot. You know it's dishonest.
As I clearly stated, the review is not mine. I have not seen the film yet. I intend to see it when it plays a festival near me, which I believe will happen in the next few months. I will review it at that time.
Your response leads me to two further points. Sundance? This film played at Sundance? I don't think so. Was that an honest mistake or an attempt to give this film cachet that it hasn't earned? Note that I didn't say "deserve", I said "earned." Once again, it goes to credibility.
And, finally, your last sentence. I think this explains a lot. You obviously have a deep, personal connection to the subject matter of this film. My genuine condolences to you and every individual who has experienced the pain that surrounds suicide. (One of the most haunting films I have seen in years is the documentary "The Bridge." I strongly recommend this film to everyone, not just those who have a personal connection to the subject.) Is it possible that these feelings have colored your coverage of THIS film? Is it possible to be objective on a subject that hits so close to home? They're fair questions, and ones that I would not have known to ask based on any of your previous postings/reviews. It could be akin to a person posting a review of an Iraq war film and failing to mention they have a brother or sister or friend serving there, or worse. A review, by its very nature, is a personal response to an event. A "good" review ("good," as in "well done," not "positive") is a transparent one.
1) I don't disagree at all with your first paragraph, but the opposite is just as true, too. I see people who do nothing but go on certain actors' boards and slam everything they do. There is a solution to this. IGNORE THEM.
The overwhelming majority of people who post here are honest. You don't avoid going to New York City just because a certain percent of its residents are criminals.
2) Sorry, I meant Berlin. Honest mistake. It won the award for best feature film in the Youth section. I think that says a lot right there. There were people who went to FOUR screenings of it. After the Q&As there were people who asked for it to be shown AGAIN right away. I don't think they were connected to the film.
To imply that I would make up a festival appearance to give a film a "cachet" it doesn't deserve is obviously a statement coming from someone who has NO idea who I am or what I do. But that's okay. I don't expect you to have done any research to find out what my level of credibility is in the industry. But it would make more sense for you to look into that before accusing someone of something so silly. You've got quite an attitude, making negative assumptions first. I ALWAYS look into someone's work before accusing them of something negative. It saves me from having to apologize later. But, like I said, it's not the first time this has happened and I can fill a book with all the apologies I've received.
Oh, by the way, Berlin is considered the premiere festival in the world for indies. It is second only to Cannes in prestige. Saying a festival premiered at Berlin gives it a FAR better cachet than saying it premiered at Sundance. If anything, I took away some of the cachet, not added to it.
3) I'm not sure who you're talking about when you mention people who only post on one board or film but certainly not me. I have literally thousands of posts on IMDb and 82 reviews. I have almost 1000 articles on my film blog. My credibility has ONLY been called into question by people on IMDb who do not take the time to look at my writing.
4) I'd like to think that EVERYONE who writes a good review has a "connection" to that film. After all, isn't that what art is? How can anyone write a positive review if they don't feel a "connection" to a film? To think any less of a person's review because the movie had a personal impact on them is ludicrous. And to equate that to having a family member in the film is incredibly offensive. I think if you discount reviews from people who feel connected to a film then you might as well discount 99% of the reviews that have ever been written.
This film was made specifically to appeal to people who might be affected by the issues presented in it. It's said that everyone has at least several if not one degree of separation between themselves and someone who has committed suicide. For all those people to either not write reviews or specify in them their own personal history of suicide, which is quite a private matter, is also ludicrous.
I really don't have the time nor the inclination to continue this debate. I have other films to review. But thank you for an intelligent discussion. It's more than I can say for a lot of the posters on here. I welcome you to look at my writing and your feedback.
-----------------------------
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
Well, I guess since I started this thread I should be the one to end it.
1.) Of course there are those who do the opposite. But you see that mostly on mainstream films with "flavor of the day" 'stars.' These flamers are usually juvenile, incredibly obvious and, as you said, easy to ignore. It is more insidious with independent films. To begin with, they rarely have stars to hate on. While there are some quality character actors listed in the cast of this film, I just don't think Mariel Hemingway, Joe Mantegna or any other of this film's "all-star" cast (and there's more than a bit of puffery in the use of that description) have a large contingent of haters out there. No, it's the puffery that goes on that irks me. With seemingly anyone being able to make a film these days, the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff is made more difficult by these egotistical charlatans.
2.) Apology accepted, but I completely and absolutely disagree with your categorization of the Berlinale as the "premier festival in the world for indies." Without a doubt, it is one of the biggest International film festivals, but I think the folks at Raindance or Sundance would challenge your categorization as well.
3.) In my discussion of the prevalent "single reviewers", note that I began one comment with "While you obviously have a body of work..." This should have made clear that I had made myself aware of your work and the comments were not directed at you personally. As your response indicated, you have an impressive body of film commentary, at least in number.
4.) And finally, where did I say that a review should be discounted because of a "personal connection?" The only "personal connection" that would lead me to discount a review would be a "personnel connection" ie. somebody involved in the production of the film or connected to someone involved with the film. Which was the original point being made. Your personal connection to the subject matter of this film did not lead me to think less of your review. Quite frankly, it added to my understanding of your reaction to the film. Do I still think that your own experience with the subject matter affected your personal reaction to the film and hence your review? Of course it did. You yourself state that "the film was made specifically to appeal to people who might be affected by the issues presented in it." While you made no such assertion in your review, it's obvious by your passionate responses that (if indeed that was the film's purpose) it succeeded - at least in your specific case.
** UPDATE - I see that my case has been supported by the most recent "reviewer" here on IMDB. He/she only registered as a user the same day as his/her post... he/she has only posted on this film...and, MOST interestingly, he/she knows how to get in touch with someone about the distribution rights for the film! IS IT POSSIBLE THEY ARE SOMEHOW AFFILIATED WITH THE FILM?!
With that... until I get an opportunity to actually see the film... adieu...
You are one mighty presumptuous man. It takes such little leg work to obtain an email address. Lordy.
shareGuess what???
It won a award....BOO YEA haha