G. Noel Gross

Colleagues:

This shouldn't be a surprising stance from someone who passionately believes there's room in the film world for BOTH Citizen Kane AND Citizen Toxie. So here goes. I'd encourage all of us to examine our use of the "direct-to-video" label to unfairly marginalize titles not so blessed by the Hollywood system as to receive a domestic theatrical release -- often these features DO screen overseas and at stateside festivals. Regardless, whether or not a movie played at your local giga-plex isn't a fair judge of its ENTERTAINMENT value, and ultimately, that's what I believe we should be addressing in our reviews. Too often, focusing on a title's pedigree becomes a common shortcut past substantive evaluation of such flicks.

Thanks,
Noel

Blade

Obviously, I'm not a reviewer, so feel free to ignore my comments but while I think you have a valid point, hasn't this term come to have the connotations it does because it is so frequently well deserved?

Meaning that movies that weren't able to generate enough interest to garner some kind of theatrical release usually suffer from a noticeably lower level of quality in production values if not also in story and acting.

As such, it serves as a useful shorthand for saying that this title is going to have lower production values and/or other qualities traditionally related to "direct-to-video" titles.

I would think that qualifying the term when appropriate would be enough, ie: "Although a direct-to-video title, MuscleMen from Mars managed to break out of the bounds of this category through ingeneous use of available California desert landscapes to create a thoroughly convincing world."

Sure there are going to be cases where direct-to-video is an unfairly used put down of a film, but in most cases it is not...and the text of the review will reveal that one way or the other, won't it?

-David

G. Noel Gross

Yes, there's limited value in the shorthand, but I object to the dismissive tone in which the term often used. The automatic assumption of limited entertainment value.

The gate to theatrical distribtuion has never been more narrow. We have giga-plexes, but they're playing the "It" flick of the weekend on half their screens ... the "must-see" movie drilled into our brains by agressive ad campagins ... touted on TV channels often owned by the parent company of the studio.

To look down our noses at a title that was lucky enough to land on video at all is against our own best interest as movie fans. We should be thankful as an audience to have another choice ... and that filmmakers have another venue.

Holly E. Ordway

I agree with Noel here. If a movie has poor production values, then *that's* what should be addressed -- as well as how much those production values actually impact the film. Shorthand labels too often lead to sloppy thinking.

I'll refer to the source of the movie if I think it's relevant, such as if it originally was produced for television. That way, for instance, readers of my Poirot reviews will be aware that the feature-length pieces were part of an overall series (which they may want more of) and that the 1.33:1 aspect ratio is correct, not pan-and-scanned.

In my reviews, I do my best to de-marginalize independent titles. The last I checked, it was possible to be extremely creative without having a lot of money available... and low-budget does not necessarily mean low production values (or vice versa!). It's all about the choices the filmmakers make... some use liberal funding to achieve their dream, while others create polished, wonderful films on a shoestring budget; some create cheapo duds and others multi-million-dollar duds; and, on many different budget levels, some create flawed but potentially interesting productions.

To paraphrase Shakespeare, the movie's the thing! (and not the route by which it got to our screen).

P.S. Noel, do you pronounce your name with one syllable ("noll") or two? My husband's name is Noel, "no-el" two syllables, so that's the default pronunciation of your name in our house

G. Noel Gross

Exactly! Very astute distinction ... and I'd argue that's more useful to readers.

Comely mademoiselles may use "Noelle" (like Christmas) ... but to most everyone else I'm "No-UL" like that dude on "Felicity." Although I also get "Knoll" (as in grassy), plus the occassional "Noah" from my Southern elders.

Psi

I am just glad they don't call you by your last name, like your taste in movies