Misc. inanity

How not to fight an independent filmmaker

By September 23, 2012No Comments

I ima­gine many of you have already heard tell of an event down in Texas wherein a debate/boxing match between “film crit­ic” Devin Faraci and film­maker Joe Swanberg occured, in which Swanberg gave Faraci a past­ing for the ages. Now, I have noth­ing against show­man­ship, and indeed, the pro­spect of a Faraci/Kenny (we are not friendly) box­ing match has been offered on Twitter, which I agreed to on prin­ciple, and also in the event that such a thing be staged to bene­fit a char­ity. However. It seems to me that arran­ging such an event as a Thing Unto Itself is kind of adoles­cent, and says much that is unpleas­ant about Contemporary Film Culture. But let’s put that aside for a moment, the bet­ter for me to ridicule Faraci. I know—I should be on his side, right? I’m no fan of Swanberg, or of his films, and I don’t much care for many of his friends either. However. When Faraci chooses to com­pare Swanberg’s out­put unfa­vor­ably with that of John Cassavetes, and asserts that “Cassavetes did­n’t have scripts” you have to won­der about this thing where the Internet means that EVERYONE gets to be a crit­ic. But, you know, you and I, we’ve been through that. What’s really kind of stag­ger­ing is the open­ing sen­tence of Faraci’s typ­ic­ally lacking-in-graciousness account of his beat­down, which is this: “Joe Swanberg’s first punch knocked out my right con­tact lens.” 

Faraci wrote this think­ing it would make a sure-fire grip­ping “lede.” I won­der if he was aware that it would con­vince a not-likely-insubstantial por­tion of his read­er­ship that he ought not be allowed to leave his house by him­self, ever. Because, if one is a box­ing novice, and one goes into the ring without wear­ing pro­tect­ive headgear, keep­ing one’s con­tact lenses in is about the stu­pid­est thing a sup­posedly sen­tient human being can do. I mean, we’re talk­ing stag­ger­ingly dumb. If you watch the video, which I don’t neces­sar­ily recom­mend, you’ll see that after the first time Faraci goes down, when the two square off again, Faraci’s got headgear on. Somebody got his head out of his ass, or some­body who was­n’t Faraci got scared of a law­suit. Who can say. I sup­pose Faraci figured he would look more “badass” bare-headed. And he learned how that works. Faraci’s gone on on Twitter about tak­ing box­ing les­sons: he either needs to pay more atten­tion, or get his money back. You’d think he’d have actu­ally tried to get in some shape before the bout, but while Swanberg charges at him with a belly full of spite (he looks genu­inely, blue-flame pissed off through­out, as if Faraci’s stand­ing in for every crit­ic who’s ever talked smack about him, your humble ser­vant included), Faraci is work­ing off of the usu­al belly full of Cheetos and Fat Tire. And that for­ward charge of Swanberg’s: it’s more street fight­ing than box­ing. But any­one with any box­ing chops/training would know what to do with such a thing: keep your fuck­ing hands up and keep mov­ing around. Backwards, to the side. Get a circle mov­ing. Don’t just put your hands up and stand there and let the guy come at you. A mov­ing tar­get’s harder to hit, Einstein. Defend your­self and make your oppon­ent weary, less fierce, and after that, you can get your first shot in. Then make it count. But not Faraci. He barely adopts the defens­ive stance, and then makes the mis­take of try­ing to land some kind of punch through Swanberg’s onslaught, des­pite the fact that he’s acutely aware—how can he not be?—of the size/reach advant­age that Swanberg has over him.

Like I said: should not be allowed to leave the house by himself. 

No Comments

  • Nick Wrigley says:

    I nev­er thought The Man From Shelby could be beat, but the con­tact lens did it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dADz2E5xcmc

  • Aden Jordan says:

    I will be curi­ous to see if this sad event effects Richard Brody’s enthu­si­asm for Swanberg.

  • Michael says:

    I gen­er­ally enjoy your stuff, and your taunt­ing of Jeffrey Wells is a delight, but your vis­cer­al dis­like of Faraci taints this art­icle with a level of bile and know-it-allness that would­n’t be out of place on Hollywood Elsewhere.

  • I have no opin­ion on Devin Faraci what­so­ever, and I’d cosign this piece, snark and all. Apart from get­ting in shape, which takes more time than I sus­pect Faraci had, and you fight with the body you have not the body you’d like, the things Glenn is talk­ing about – not wear­ing con­tact lenses, wear­ing headgear, at least try­ing to sidestep and box an onrush­ing oppon­ent – are all first-day-at-whitecollar-boxing-school stuff.

  • This piece was frig­gin’ hil­ari­ous. Any “crit­ic” who does­n’t know that Cassavetes’ films were almost entirely scrip­ted deserves a beat­down. Too bad it was­n’t a bet­ter film­maker dish­ing it out.

  • Louis Godfrey says:

    They are both actu­ally pretty ter­rible fight­ers. Swanberg throws his punches way too far bey­ond his body. But Faraci… The dude isn’t even in a fight­ing stance. Get your feet set! Swanberg wins by vir­tue of being the aggress­ive fight­er on a guy who could­n’t stand up straight to a good gust of wind…

  • What if you have really bad eye­sight? Prescription goggles?

  • Harry K. says:

    Frankly, if your eye­sight is bad enough that you can­’t see the guy hit­ting you three feet away, I’d think about skip­ping box­ing entirely.

  • Harry K. says:

    Unaided, I mean.

  • @michaelgsmith
    “The film you have just seen was an improvisation.”
    – the final title card in Shadows

  • Not to imply that later Cassavettes’ films did­n’t have scripts–just to point out that it’s pretty easy to see where these kinds of mis­un­der­stand­ings arise out of, and a smidgen of char­ity might not be out of place here.

  • jbryant says:

    Peter: I’ve always heard that even that title card was a mis­rep­res­ent­a­tion, at least of the final ver­sion of the film.

  • JC says:

    Am I the only one who thinks this is undig­ni­fied and embar­ras­ing for both parties?

  • Oliver_C says:

    SvF: Whoever wins, we lose.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    JC: Yes, it is a giv­en that it’s undig­ni­fied and embar­rass­ing. Not just “Fantastic Debates” but the whole Fantastic Fest eth­os which pos­its a slightly more intel­lec­tu­ally cred­ible geek-culture-triumphant eth­os that’s not suc­cess­fully cam­ou­fla­ging the des­per­ate desire for an exten­ded adoles­cence that under­lies it.
    As for my “vis­cer­al dis­like” for Faraci, I dunno. I’ve nev­er met the guy. I’m not an admirer of his writ­ing, his philo­sophy, his per­sona. He acts as if the fact that he’s seen a few Warren Oates movies that aren’t “Stripes” makes him some kind of expert on some­thing. I under­stand he’s got a few friends and admirers in the industry but I’ve got no use for him. By the same token, I don’t enter­tain per­sist­ent bili­ous feel­ings about him. I’ve nursed, and con­tin­ue to nurse, a few pretty irra­tion­al grudges in my life, but hon­est, I hardly ever think of Faraci (he blocked me from Twitter after a single snarky remark, which is mainly what I do on Twitter, but that’s just the kind of thin-skinned “badass” he is). EXCEPT when he comes out and pulls this kind of Simple Jack stunt, which, face it, deserves all the ridicule it can get.

  • Rodrigo Cortez says:

    Swanberg box­ing his crit­ics? I always knew he was on the same level as Uwe Boll. Also, you should have snarkily put “film­maker” in quotes, as you did with “film crit­ic” – both are debat­able (IMO).

  • Petey says:

    Am I the only one who thinks this is undig­ni­fied and embar­ras­ing for both parties?”
    Disagree. My mod­est pro­pos­al would be for ALL dis­putes over cinema to be solved in the box­ing ring.
    For example, I think a Terrence Malick vs Lars Von Trier 10 round­er would’ve been the prop­er way to determ­ine the Best Movie of 2011.

  • Lord Henry says:

    For example, I think a Terrence Malick vs Lars Von Trier 10 round­er would’ve been the prop­er way to determ­ine the Best Movie of 2011.”
    I would’ve paid damn good money to see that.

  • Louis Godfrey:
    Oh, don’t get me wrong. I nev­er meant to sug­gest Swanberg would­n’t get his ass handed to him by even any halfway-trained ama­teur novice. But you gotta admit that poor dis­tance judge­ment and “reach­ing” on your punches is a far more advanced mis­take than, well, not even get­ting your feet set in a fight­ing stance. Swanberg looks like a guy who’s been in a gym a couple times inform­ally and let the adren­aline get the bet­ter of him. Faraci does­n’t even belong in the same ring as THAT guy.

  • Daniella Isaacs says:

    I’m glad people are point­ing out the false­hood that is: “Cassavetes did­n’t have scripts.” Not only should Faraci not be allowed out­side, he should not be allowed to post film reviews on the internet.

  • Genuinely ask­ing: How closely do his fin­ished films con­form to the shoot­ing scripts?
    Faraci is obvi­ously wrong, but it’s not the stu­pid­est thing ever said. That Cassavetes had scripts, while it is the kind of thing a ser­i­ous crit­ic should know, is also the kind of thing you have to know in order to know (if that makes sense; mean­ing it is not some­thing you’d nat­ur­ally infer from the films them­selves, à la Whit Stillman in the oppos­ite direction).

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    Victor, that’d be a GREAT ques­tion for Ray Carney…oh wait

  • I gave him my ques­tion for safe keep­ing. I’m sure he’ll answer it.

  • Louis Godfrey says:

    Victor: you are right. Swanberg looks like he has at least been in a brawl before; Faraci does everything short of hold out his lunch money.

  • lazarus says:

    I ima­gine Malick would beat Boll with a very patient Rope-A-Dope strategy.
    Jeff Wells would com­plain that Malick needs a tough­er, Schneideresque train­er in his corner.

  • lazarus says:

    I some­how sub­sti­tuted Boll for Von Trier, though I’m sure Terry would be able to out­last the Dane as well.

  • bill says:

    Next let’s get Drew McWeeny vs. Mark Duplass. But in the Thunderdome, though. McWeeny will have an advant­age there because it would be a com­fort­ing envir­on­ment in there, but I can only assume Duplass is faster (maybe?), and any­way, who­ever wins, the Thunderdome has weapons and shit in it.

  • Dan Coyle says:

    I’ve always wanted to box Oliver Stone, myself. And I’d like to think every punch Swanberg threw rep­res­en­ted all those prob­lems with Star Trek that Faraci lis­ted in the review but ignored to give it an inex­plic­able recommendation.

  • I.B. says:

    Fistfights are so low and bar­bar­ic… What ever happened to duels?

  • Petey says:

    Look, you folks sug­gest­ing Thunderdomes and duels are simply bey­ond the pale. The Marquess of Queensberry rules were put in place for good reason.
    Watching J. Hoberman beat Michael Bay into an unre­cog­niz­able pulp in a box­ing ring under Marquess of Queensberry rules via pay-per-view is per­fectly accept­able enter­tain­ment for the entire family.
    But the Thunderdome and duel sug­ges­tions cross the line into pure bloodlust.
    Always remember:
    – The First Rule of Cinema Fight Club is to do things by Marquess of Queensberry rules.
    – The Second Rule of Cinema Fight Club is an auto­mat­ic TKO for sug­gest­ing a movie is ‘not cine­mat­ic’ because it does­n’t con­tain car chases and explosions.

  • Simon Abrams says:

    I’ve nev­er boxed in my life but even my first reac­tion was, “A con­tact lens? While boxing?”
    I did do soc­cer for six or sev­en years (mid­guard, defense) so that might have helped.…
    But still.