Post by politicidal on Aug 5, 2020 23:29:44 GMT
Just an aside but I dispute the article's suggestion that John Cleese is not that well known outside of the UK.
TEXT:
A recent show performed as a pay-to-view live stream from Cadogan Hall, titled Why There Is No Hope by the actor and comedian resulted in a one-star review by one particular critic. In response, Cleese had some scathing words to impart on Twitter to the entire profession of film and tv criticism.
"There's a hilariously vile review of my little streamed talk last night in the Telegraph Its critic really hated it! I wonder if he was influenced in any way by my quoting Oscar Wilde " Critics are like eunuchs. They watch it ever night, but they can't do it themselves. I agree with Oscar If critics could write or direct or act, presumably they would be doing that, and earning more than the pittance that critics are paid So it's odd that, given their inabilities, they are then put in judgment over people who CAN write, direct and act."
"There's a hilariously vile review of my little streamed talk last night in the Telegraph Its critic really hated it! I wonder if he was influenced in any way by my quoting Oscar Wilde " Critics are like eunuchs. They watch it ever night, but they can't do it themselves. I agree with Oscar If critics could write or direct or act, presumably they would be doing that, and earning more than the pittance that critics are paid So it's odd that, given their inabilities, they are then put in judgment over people who CAN write, direct and act."
Harsh words, and ones that make Cleese look like somewhat of a sore loser, unable to stomach constructive criticism. To add some perspective to the comedian's sentiments, here are some extracts from the review by Dominic Cavendish for The Telegraph that provoked Cleese's ire.
[His performance] seemed calculated to demonstrate, over a tedious hour, that Cleese has become the very thing, humourless and earnest, that he once made a universal laughing stock...aside from a few welcome quips at his own expense (he likened Cadogan Hall's surreally vacant auditorium to "the Annual General Meeting of the Apathy Society") - the national treasure decided to bore for Britain...Cleese's comedy legacy is assured, but I'd rather submit to the Spanish Inquisition than watch his wretched disquisition again."
The reviewer does appear to be going overboard in certain parts while expressing his distaste for Cleese's performance. The comedian's response on Twitter is unlikely to smooth matters over. Especially since, after his followers pointed out that it was unfair to paint all critics as equally untalented and unworthy of passing judgment on film or television, Cleese had this to say.
"Yes, a 'good' critic can write, but they write criticism, And very few people would consider that creative So their judgment of criticism might be good, but their understanding of creative writing would be much less good than that of 'good' creative writers. Thus, when the critic Quentin Letts tried his hand at creative writing, the Times critic described his effort as 'dreadful' My director friends tell me they have a bottom drawer of plays by critics that are 'dreadful' too..."
[His performance] seemed calculated to demonstrate, over a tedious hour, that Cleese has become the very thing, humourless and earnest, that he once made a universal laughing stock...aside from a few welcome quips at his own expense (he likened Cadogan Hall's surreally vacant auditorium to "the Annual General Meeting of the Apathy Society") - the national treasure decided to bore for Britain...Cleese's comedy legacy is assured, but I'd rather submit to the Spanish Inquisition than watch his wretched disquisition again."
The reviewer does appear to be going overboard in certain parts while expressing his distaste for Cleese's performance. The comedian's response on Twitter is unlikely to smooth matters over. Especially since, after his followers pointed out that it was unfair to paint all critics as equally untalented and unworthy of passing judgment on film or television, Cleese had this to say.
"Yes, a 'good' critic can write, but they write criticism, And very few people would consider that creative So their judgment of criticism might be good, but their understanding of creative writing would be much less good than that of 'good' creative writers. Thus, when the critic Quentin Letts tried his hand at creative writing, the Times critic described his effort as 'dreadful' My director friends tell me they have a bottom drawer of plays by critics that are 'dreadful' too..."