On Saturday night, my brother, SiL, and I settled in to watch the movie, “Emancipation”, featuring the person who is currently Hollywood’s chief villain, Will Smith. We were totally engrossed in the movie and very impressed by his performance as the chief character who was in virtually every scene of the movie. We agreed that it deserves at least 3 out of 4 stars and is very worthy of a strong recommendation as a movie to watch.
The discussion then turned to how the movie is going to be accepted by critics and by Hollywood’s power brokers since it’s chief star is someone who is banned for ten years and generally viewed as someone who should be punished as much as possible. I stated that the movie cannot be lauded because it would also be a left-handed compliment to its chief star, Will Smith. After all, for a movie to be great, the chief star of that movie would have to be instrumental in its greatness. My opinion was that the movie won’t even be nominated for any Academy Awards much less receive any.
Fast forward one day to yesterday when I was watching the Bears with a few friends. After the game, I mentioned having seen the movie. A female friend responded vigorously that the critics say it’s awful and has no substance and that she isn’t going to see it. I responded that I actually watched it before formulating an opinion.
So, is this an isolated case, or is this movie going to be assassinated without ever having a chance to be fairly judged on its own merit? When asked that same question, Will Smith said he only hoped that the movie would be judged fairly and not be damaged in any way because of what he did as an individual.
If I’m looking over my different movie watching options, and see Will Smith, I move on. Maybe that’s my loss, who knows, but there are plenty of choices sans Will Smith.
One imagines, that diminishing of what was supposed to be his next big achievement, is Smith’s “real” punishment. Which he brought upon himself.
OTOH, yes, there is the matter of whether the critical reception of Emancipation was supposed to be about Will Smith’s performance and role in its creation, i.e. if this were instead Anthony Mackie or Mike Colter in the lead role, sure it would not be as much of a potential sales success but would it still be expected to be a good/bad/meh movie? That if Smith were only Executive Producer instead of star, would it matter as much?
On the third hand, there is the matter as to whether that is a deliberate compensation/contrast move at how the reaction immediately around the incident was too slow and lame. That if Smith had been kicked out of the hall immediately and booked for assault and battery the next morning, people would feel that was taken care of.
But you and I would still not know if that influenced the critics or not.
One wants to believe a responsible critic will be able to say “pity, such a brilliant performance by such an utter @$$hole”. But on the fourth hand (I get them out of hammerspace, ok?), people these days take the approach of “I don’t want to put money in his pocket” as the means to punch up.
On yet another hand , slapping a Brother on live national TV is nothing compared to what Roman Polanski did, and RP has had further work of his celebrated, even through decades as an exiled escaped felon. But then again may that be because he does not create major international blockbusters selling in the hundreds of millions, and everyone presumes everybody knows and The Point has already been made
That’s kind of what I was thinking. It’s not that I have any objection to Smith suffering from the consequences of his action, but this is where Hollywood and many of us decide to draw the line? Sean Penn’s primary hobby was punching people back in the 1980s, Dr. Dre slammed a woman’s head against a wall multiple times because he didn’t like an interview she did with Ice Cube, and of course Harvey Weinstein’s behavior was an open secret for many, many years.
If Will Smith made a good movie then he made a good movie. I pretty much believe the same about Polanksi. Odious man, but he makes good movies.
These two opinions don’t jibe. On one hand, you are saying that Polanski’s behavior was worse and over more time as compared to Smith’s single emotional act, but then you are saying that you view them in the same way.
What Will Smith did was wrong, and he should be and has been punished by Hollywood. However, in the ranks of Hollywood’s “criminals”, he is a lightweight to say the least. The big difference is that what he did was viewed by millions of people. That will be the determining factor for the rest of his life, not the act itself.
Their behavior isn’t what I view in the same way. How could I? Slapping Chris Rock is like a fart in a hurricane when compared to drugging and raping a minor. What I view the same is whether their movies are good or not. Polanski is an odious man, but I can’t deny that he makes some good movies. Chinatown is a good movie. Knife in the Water is a good movie. I’m not going to argue they’re bad just because I don’t like Polanski.
So, getting back to the point of my thread, your opinion is that, based on the comment above, Will Smith and his movies should be viewed the same way? Add to that the original question I asked in my OP, will he be, or will even the movie be? I’m thinking not.
I think Smith’s movies should be reviewed based on their merits not based on how people feel about him. As for whether his movie will be panned, I don’t know. Quite frankly, I’m baffled by just how upset many people were about his slap given the much worse behavior other celebrities have demonstrated in the past that have been ignored.
So ,it’s currently at 44% on RT, 54% on Metacritic. And that seems to line up with the user responses as well. I wouldn’t really call that an “assassination.” Now, I haven’t seen it so I’m not going to say the critics are “wrong,” but it’s a bit of a conspiracy theory to say that the only reason they don’t like it is because of Will. The reviews are mostly middling. If it was a good movie being bombed because of Will, you would think there would be a bunch of really good reviews and a bunch of really bad reviews (as of right now, there are only 4 reviews under 40 on Metacritic).
Where the “seen by millions” makes a difference is in relation to the reaction orboverreaction to the Smith/Rock incident, not as a comparison to others’ major crimes (or mere embarassments).
If Smith and Rock had come to blows over an argument at a club/restaurant it would have been crowed about at TMZ but would be considered a private matter and in the future just don’t invite them to the same event and that would have been that.
But he publicly disrupted the trade’s night of self-celebration, ruined another awardee’s moment, and embarassed those involved in King Richard’s achievement, and the official organization was slow to react. So there’s the suspicion there are those who want to extract payback.
He messed up. People mess up. I can forgive him (not that he needs by forgiveness) . I saw King Richard last week, and I must say, his acting was exceptional.
For me it’s not about forgiving, which I could do, it’s about forgetting. When I see him on screen all I can think about are the jokes/memes/etc and I’m taken out of the movie.
