"I was particularly touched by a mother who wrote in and followed up repeatedly with interest in our steady flow of news on “The Dark Knight”.

What struck me about her is she sought our information for the benefit of a family ordeal. When we’d publish where filming would be coming, they’d all – the father, mother and kids – make a date of it. The feedback emerged as an unexpected case of covering entertainment for entertainment."

Interview With Adam Fendelman, HollywoodChicago.com

Could you tell the viewers of tMF how you started as a film reviewer and now editor and publisher of one of the Web’s most important film review and entertainment sites?

Every story has a backstory. Here’s mine in a nutshell. I grew up an oddball kid who always knew his calling as a scribe and never deviated.

Fresh out of Missouri journalism school, I expanded beyond my background in print journalism and co-founded a regional online news publication. It proved a euphoric choice because I’ve never gone back from Web publishing. Even if you’re in print, by the very nature of things today you also double online.

In 2000, I fell upon a writing niche in Chicago that was reflective of what was evocative at the time. Over the years, I’ve expanded my creative range and eventually landed on what felt much more like home: film. I’d always ask myself how certain sequences were possible growing up.

Now I ask the directors and actors not only how it was done but more importantly why. I’m captivated by all the brainwaves swirling in the minds of some of the most creative people on the planet and my film writing aims to bring the backstories of the movies into human perspective.

The credibility and prestige associated with online film reviewers is not as high as those in the print media. Do you agree with this notion?

That depends who you write for and how you’ve branded your personality with the masses. If you’re writing for an unknown outfit and you’re some random schmoe off the street, you wouldn’t be taken seriously because you haven’t earned it or been backed by an entity that has.

Merely saying you write for the Chicago Tribune, for example – online or off – sets your quality bar. If you don’t have the benefit of a major outfit behind you, earning the respect, trust and credibility of your readers is a long and patient process. The payoff is entirely worth the journey.

Tell us how you started doing film reviews and analysis. Which was your first ever film review? How did your viewers react to it? Was it a good or a bad film?

I didn’t really start writing film. It’s more like film started writing me. I just woke up one day and decided to finally let it. My foray into the film world came unexpectedly and accidentally just like all great inventions and discoveries usually do.

While serving as the editor-in-chief of MidwestBusiness.com – a regional business news publication – I was pitched to write a story on the entrepreneurial side of an upcoming film by interviewing Billy Bob Thornton and Virginia Madsen.

At first thought, I thought the story was a stretch for my business publication. At second thought, it felt like the notion was just the one that has been haunting me for as long as I can remember. That’s not something you can deny and it’s certainly something you have to let play out.

It felt liberating and refreshing to slow down from the traditional chaos of the daily breaking news deadline. I could again spend quality time picking apart people’s brains to ink 1,000 or more words as a capsule of a time and a place in history.

- - -

- - -

“The Astronaut Farmer” itself was a decent, feel-good, family film. Much more important to me, the process of interviewing two people who so passionately immersed themselves in their craft impelled me to tell a worthy story of truth and humanity.

I received several notes in response all saying much of the same thing: they learned something new, and more important, they were motivated to think on it as it related to their own lives. Taking a film with you is one of the most important fruits it can bear.

What one comment you received really made you feel how awesome it is to be a film critic? What one comment made you feel otherwise?

Feedback comes often and often in surprising forms. There’s no way of knowing the trickle effect one piece of information can activate.

I was particularly touched by a mother who wrote in and followed up repeatedly with interest in our steady flow of news on “The Dark Knight”. What struck me about her is she sought our information for the benefit of a family ordeal. When we’d publish where filming would be coming, they’d all – the father, mother and kids – make a date of it. The feedback emerged as an unexpected case of covering entertainment for entertainment.

Also, after we first published information foretelling the implosion of the old Brach’s candy building for “The Dark Knight,” on the day of the big bang we were communicating with readers with a view from a live television chopper. It was fun to be so interactive with such a big payout.

On the other hand, our readers tend to have an eye for detail that’s as meticulous as ours. In our review of the film “Juno,” we quoted J.K. Simmons as saying “I’m punching him in the nuts” (referring to Michael Cera after he impregnated his daughter) instead of “I’m punching him in the wiener”. The husband of the film’s screenwriter (Diablo Cody) wrote in correcting the minor oversight.

While some may argue that a critic’s opinions on a film may not necessarily affects its box office performance, it certainly has provided producers with enough feedback to either aggressively campaign for a film or simply put it on hold. Is this a gross exaggeration of the critic’s power and influence?

Critics are a double-edged sword for the studios and their publicists. On one hand, they serve as powerful and free advertising when they objectively rave about a film. On the other, they serve as persuasive pundits when their feedback about a film calls it rotten.

In response, we’ve seen a shift in what they’ll allow and when. Films are screened anywhere from months in advance right through the day before a film’s opening. Many screening invitations come with a required embargo for reviews until the day of release.

That mandate is a direct response to the nervousness inherent in the unknown of which way critics will be swayed. Ultimately, a critic’s job isn’t to promote or demote but to impartially guide from the perspective of a longtime professional.

Has there been an incident when you have to argue with another film critic because of a review?

Publicly, no. Privately, sure.

Critics all have their own opinions. No one will ever see in or feel from a film exactly the same as another. When we publish, we move on to the next film. Critics generally don’t make a practice of reading each other’s work and sending scoffing feedback to each other.

The next time we see each other at a screening, though, an intelligent debate’s always fair game.

Your film ratings are unique. Can you discuss further how you rate a film?

You always hear critics giving a film “four stars,” for example, but what does that mean? Based on what? Is there a formula or is it just a gut feeling? On HollywoodChicago.com, I use an “Oscarman” system whereby our critics assign ratings from 0.0 to 5.0 by one part gut feeling along with one part systematic methodology.

A film being awarded 5/5 isn’t just a knockout film. It also undeniably has all five critical cinematic elements: story, acting, visuals, directing and writing. For each missing or weak element, an Oscarman is deducted.

The Academy Awards is always one of the most anticipated events in America. Its one occasion that fans get to see the stars in one place and recognize and celebrate the best performances of the previous year. However, it is only recently that the award-giving body recognizes black actors. While Sydney Poitier won as best actor, the next time it happened was with Denzel Washington (and Hale Berry, of course), and its decades apart. Is the Oscars racist? As a film reviewer and more than just an Oscar watcher, what is your take on that?

It’s a matter of simple math. For every 100 roles cast, a minority of them are African-Americans. When it comes time to putting them to a vote, there are even fewer possibilities.

The Oscars are about growth and raw talent. If a body of work is a standout exception and the role is delivered exceptionally, the award will go to the deserving artist regardless of race.

By the way, from 2000 to 2006, three of the seven best-actor awards went to black men (Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx and Forest Whitaker).

How about foreign actors? Do they have equal chances of winning an Oscar? While it’s the British who got their share of awards, no other country could boast of getting enough statues, not even France, Italy or Germany can be considered fairly represented in the Academy. Is it because of the language and the perception of the members of the Academy? This may seem like a generalization, but what are your views on this issue?

While there are controversial issues here surrounding bias and the “one-country-one-film” rule, foreign film is its own category for a reason. Smaller countries like Iceland can play with the American academy on a level field even alongside stronger film countries like Italy and France.

On the whole, though, the U.S. churns out a great many more films than foreign countries and therefore has many more chances for nomination.

HollywoodChicago.com is more than just a film review site. It covers news, interviews and features of top Hollywood talents. How did you arrive at the concept of the site (and an upcoming new look to boot)? What are some of the stories behind its success?

One of the best attributes of the Web is that anyone can spit out a new site in a matter of minutes. One of the worst attributes of the Web is that anyone can spit out a new site in a matter of minutes.

Any compelling site that spreads like wildfire either does something old in a new way or does something new through fresh means. IMDb is the film bible because it has all the data. Rotten Tomatoes is the real deal because it offers critical consensus and lives by the concept that what 100 critics think is more objective than just one.

HollywoodChicago.com was premeditated and didn’t form overnight. It was the right voice in the right place at the right time. “The Dark Knight” – Chicago’s most important film project in decades and one of the most anticipated films of 2008 – was shooting with omnipresence in the city. I started writing about what I saw, I put it in perspective and people took notice.

- - -

_{( The new HollywoodChicago.com look)}

They wanted a sounding board and a repository of everything they experienced, too, and I merely offered up the medium.

Mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters of all kinds – just genuinely enthusiastic Chicagoans – wanted to spread the good word about what Chris Nolan and his crew were up to in our city. Covering the news daily with journalistic integrity demonstrated the quality inherent in the site’s operators. That launch pad set a sustainable stage for the future.

Can Chicago compete with Hollywood and New York as a filmmaker’s haven? What would you consider some of the advantages that the windy city has over the other two? For a businessman, would you prefer Chicago to film your next project?

For the majority of filming, the decision is largely based on money. Toronto and Vancouver have been actively seeking filmmakers for the last several years by using tax incentives.

The former Richard Daley was against films being shot in Chicago. That mayor felt Hollywood portrayed Chicago in a negative image. He was uncooperative in approving permits necessary to shoot in the city. In the 1980s and 1990s, city hall lightened up and there was the boom of John Hughes films, “The Blues Brothers,” “The Untouchables,” “The Fugitive” and so on.

Over the last few years, the current Richard Daley has made his desire for local film clear and has been proactively facilitating the process. Permitting is more manageable, more tax breaks are available and union assistance is more widespread.

Ultimately, most of the talent, producers and people working on a film are in Los Angeles. Post-production is often done in California. You ultimately have to convince the actors into shooting. If they have a 45-day shoot in Los Angeles, they can still be with their families and work on other projects. It takes persuasion for them to shoot an entire production in another city.

Los Angeles has the soundstages, the people and the resources filmmakers need to make movies and TV shows. Chicago offers a film a different aesthetic look than what’s available in Los Angeles along with a smaller budget.

What’s your take on America’s appetite for celebrity gossip? As a film reviewer, does it influence your review of films where roles are played by some of these celebrities?

Quite simply, celebrity gossip is a decidedly different beast than what I’m disseminating.

While it’s for some and has its own cult following, it’s a guilty pleasure I’ve decisively decided not to engage. John Q and his real-life drug addiction or Jane Doe getting knocked up and divorced has no influence on my views of them. We all have baggage. These people are professionals who go to work just like the rest of us. They mean business. If they happen to have a foot fetish in real life, that’s only interesting to me if it carries into their work.

Who are some of the young talents we have today that excites you?

- - -

The Movie-Fanatic is grateful to Adam Fendelman for this interview. You can visit HollywoodChicago and get to see more of Mr. Fendelman's articles, interviews and film reviews.

[ HollywoodChicago.com ]

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Add Comment