A few days ago, after seeing the film Eat Pray Love, I wrote a post criticizing (lambasting) the Democrat Gazette's movie reviewer, Philip Martin, and review of the film. He then posted that on his Facebook page, a surprise to me. He also responded to me on my blog, something he as a celebrity did not have to do (bonus points for him).
He shares with me:
"Dare accepted, Miss Moxie.
I have no problem with your expressed opinions; if you want to make the Elizabeth Gilbert as portrayed by Julia Roberts in this movie a "saint," that is your privilege. But I have a tough time accepting her as a fellow traveler with Merton, Whitman, Buddha and Jesus. I wince at the cute little brown gentleman she adopted as a guru (despite, the movie makes clear, his obvious charlatanism).
I stand by my view of the film as shallow and irritating, not because the onscreen Liz is flawed, or even because of it's upper middle class materialist P.O.V. (what does it say about me that I recognized the $600 sunglasses Roberts wears in the movie?) but because that character's self-indulgence is excused as a by-product of her trivial pursuit of designer enlightenment. (And the movie's ultimate message is she just needed to find the right guy.)
I haven't read the book but I'm familiar with Gilbert's other work and suspect it's much more self-deprecatory, honest and nuanced than the Hollywood bowdlerization.
I do find it's troubling that you would make false and rather rude assertions in this piece. I sincerely doubt you would be so crass as to call me an SOB in person.
I don't smoke cigars or drink much Scotch. (I drink wine and Bourbon.) My tastes in cinema run rather away from frat comedies like The Hangover, more to (cite recent films) The Father of My Children, Summer Hours and The Kids Are All Right. And I know something about Eastern spiritual traditions. And I'm a feminist, one who doesn't believe ad hominen attacks really say anything. There is an unfortunate
But if you're going to speak truth to "power," you need to be sure of your facts. And casting me as some kind of know-nothing troglodyte who believes women should be barefoot and pregnant (or whatever you're trying to imply) is hardly congruent with reality, or the easily discovered record.
In short, it's really easy to win an argument when you get to make up the other side. I have no idea why you don't like me and why everyone should understand that, but you are entitled. Namaste. PM"
My response:
Dear Mr. Martin,
It is an unfair set up when an unknown blogger throws tomatoes at a target that is publicly acknowledged as the expert in their field. I have the advantage of reading everything you have published in the paper for the last 8 years since moving to Arkansas. It is also unfair that I hail from the land of movies and cut my newspaper teeth on the LA Times and then the San Francisco Chronicle - loving their coverage of all things film. It is no question that I, like you, love film - we just see it all differently.
With Eat Pray Love, I feel you missed the opportunity to connect to 51% of your audience through the understanding that this particular film, that was not geared to your demographic, was a touchstone for many American women. There is no question that we are of a certain class that allow ourselves the audacity to think we can do anything that we want - we get that - and do not deny how privileged that makes us. Thinking that those urges are in some way inferior or are selfish is an unfair statement. If I recall, you may not smoke cigars or swill whiskey, but you are a white American male which makes you one of the most privileged in the world over. You can do, be, have anything you want. I don't argue that is right or wrong - what frustrates me is when you so obviously don't want that for your sisters.
It is ok to not like a film - we all feel that way (Zoolander is one of my least liked films and anything with Sandra Bullock), but to hate it so violently seems small. When I can say, not my cup of tea, but you may love it, I know that I have reached a sense of equanimity. Many reviewers did not love this film, in fact, they thought much like you, but they were able to temper their emotions to serve the fact that maybe, just maybe, some of their readers might like it.
You had an opportunity - it may have been pandering - but one that allowed you to connect on a level that reached out to those of us who are looking for more, to do better, to care deeply. You chose instead to rake that through coals of anger and fury. One friend, listening to your review on our NPR affiliate, said you sounded angry and sad making her want to both read the book and see the movie more.
You are, as I am, entitled to your opinions (and I hold onto mine pretty strongly). You, unfortunately, represent the entire movie population of Arkansas, a heady responsibility that I do not hold. So, next time, instead of feeling the urge to be biting and pithy, try to relate to a film in a way that connects you to the chosen audience it is trying to reach and we will meet you there.
Until then, namaste - Jacqueline
