Filmmaking, Writing, Beer, Insularity, History, and Other Topics More-Or-Less Related to “Beer Wars,” Part 2
Part 1 — Part 2 — Part 3 — Part 4 — Part 5 — Part 6 — Part 7
Part 8 — Part 9 — Part 10 — Part 11 — Part 12 — Part 13
NOTE: When I moved to a new site, this “Beer Wars” series was mangled/destroyed during the move. I’ve reconstructed it by copying/pasting another copy of the original posts. I also lost the comments in their original form. I’ve copied/pasted the comments, but had to do so under my own name. So although it looks as though I’m the only commenter, I’m not. In each case, I’ve identified the original commenter.
_______________________________
The film would be followed by a half-hour live discussion by some of the people in the film. She asked me to participate in that discussion because I’m a historian, not a beer person, and therefore I’d add an outsider’s perspective.
Anat’s production company, her publicity firm, and Fathom began promoting the film: They used a website, Anat tweeted, publicists sent out press releases, etc.
The blogosphere chatter began. And sailed along a predictable trajectory: the “beer geeks” pissed and moaned about how this film was no good, the idea was old, there is no “beer war.”
“Rhonda Kallman is in the film? Why? She’s not a craft brewer!”
“Who the hell is Anat Baron? She’s not a beermaker. How can SHE know anything about beer?”
“Sam’s in it. That’s good. But why not other craft-gods? And who cares about distributors? That battle is over! Why bother to make a film about it?”
The pre-release chatter consisted of mindless knee-jerking on the part of people who claim they want “craft beer” to be noticed, loved, and consumed, but who are, at the same time, irrationally dedicated to denouncing anything and everything that does not fit their vision of what craft beer is and how it ought to be portrayed (and revered and adored.)
They complained about the price of admission, about the fact that it was one night only, about the fact that only 400-s0me theaters would be airing the film. (The event was broadcast via satellite; not every theater is equipped with satellite streaming equipment; therefore not every theater could show the film.)
Even the fact that Anat was promoting the film pissed people off: They complained about the overdose of press releases, emails, etc. They seemed not to realize that the “beer world” was not Anat’s only target. She wanted anyone and everyone to see the film. So of course she launched a PR blitz: she’s trying to fill seats in a theater.
But beer folks see the world through their prism and they didn’t understand that this was a film first, and only a beer film secondarily. Anat didn’t make the film for the beer world. She made the film because she was trying to explore and make sense of the logic of capitalism. Beer simply provided a lens through which to examine the topic. (I understood that intuitively: My book about beer was a work of history that explored one aspect of American society. I used beer as the vehicle for that exploration.)
Next: The nature of “group think” and the creative process.
10 Responses to “Filmmaking, Writing, Beer, Insularity, History, and Other Topics More-Or-Less Related to “Beer Wars,” Part 2”
This was originally posted by Alan McLeod, who blogs at beerblog.genx40.comI really am a bit confused why you have an issue with the pre-movie buzz given all the PR to stoke the pre-movie buzz. Is it that people should have dutifully fell into line with the movie before (and you can add the CAPS) anyone had seen the movie? Is it because we should take pity on hard working people who make movies and say we look forward to agreeing with everything in and surrounding the movie?Seems to me that the movie wanted to start a conversation but it caused a different conversation. Seeing as the beer conversation is in its third decade, surely there was no expectation that craft beer would be the conversation that gets started. Surely it would in fact be about the merits of the movie like you anyone judges the merits of any project of expression.I can only think you have decided to not grant people a level of rationality in the response to a project – even though the movie is someone’s first statement in what is a very mature conversation. Given that inevitable assumption on my part, I am sure you don’t understand why all this idiocy of criticism is going on. But, really, you are doing the same thing you accuse people who didn’t like the movie or, like me, didn’t like the presumption of the lead up to the movie. You are not listening.I say let’s continue the discussion that has been going on since the craft beer movement began and ditch the idea of the monologue.
No, I didn’t have a problem with pre-debut buzz. Nor did I think people ought to follow the party line and LOVE the film w/out seeing it.What I objected to was that many people simply dismissed the film, sight unseen. And criticized it, sight unseen.All I wanted was for people to give it a chance. And yes, I was, and am, listening, and because I was listening, what I heard were people, ya know, dismissing the entire film before they’d even seen it.Nor do I think anyone wants a monologue. I sure don’t; if I did, I wouldn’t bother to blog, to write op-ed pieces and essays, or comment on these comments.
Another comment from Alan McLeod:I think the only people who directly dismissed it were those who didn’t attend and never discussed it. Anyone who is talking about it is not dismissing it. They may not like the movie or like the presumption of the movie’s plan to “start a conversation” that has been going on so long but they are engaging with it.I know you know I couldn’t go because it was a five hour drive into another country and back but I have been impressed how robust the discussion has actually been. Not much group think at all. And, if you think about it, the movie in the end is fundamentally irrelevant if we believe its own purpose of contributing to that discourse. I don’t need to see the movie to understand the ideas it expresses. The ideas are not unique to the movie for the most part, not sourced from the medium of the film. The flow of those ideas will carry on with their own life. If that is dismissing it, well, I dismissed long before I heard of it because I knew there would be a point likely soon after its release that will have long forgotten it. The film itself is in many ways already so last Thursday. Its ideas, however, may or may not go on.That is a long way to hint at why I wrote that it was a lot like “dancing about architecture.” In the end, film is not a very good medium upon which to start or maintain a discussion of a broader pop culture phenomenon – especially in the web 2 world.
From me, again:But —- how do you know what ideas the film expressed if you didn’t see the film?
Comment from Tim Beauchamp, who blogs at littlewinery.blogspot.comMaureen, I especially liked your perspectives in the movie, as well and your discussions before and since.Anat said that she wanted to start the discussion, and many complaints that I have seen, such as Alan’s here, are quick to point out that that discussion has been going on for 3 decades. I agree with Alan. They have been going on and have really covered much of this already. But, here is where it is different. Those discussions all took place over a craft beer, and among the small, but growing craft beer community. Anat pointed out, and you have said, that this was not just a movie about craft beer for people who like craft beer.Though I sometimes get tired of, and annoyed by people who complain, for the sake of complaining, or disagree with a premise, not understanding that that is not even what the discussion is about, I think that much of this noise has helped bring the film to the attention of people who would not have known about it in the first place.Do you think that Anat, being quite PR savvy, planned on this, and maybe even encouraged it? It worked.There were parts of the movie I disliked, which I mentioned when I blogged about it, but overall, the movie seemed to touch on, or inspire many discussions in many forums. To that end, I would say that it was a screaming success. I look forward to other works from her.
Another comment from Alan McLeod:I have seen about 57 times of film’s script now about the ideas that the film included or the ideas that the film triggered through reading the discussions about it. Sure there is a whacking load of rudeness and oafishness but there is plenty good, too. I really have no interest in the authorship (either by film maker or film subject) of any particular idea or the cinematographic expression of that idea through the medium of the film. I only want to know if there is a new interesting idea. I don’t know if I have heard of any yet in all that I read.It really is the nature of the beast. Remember, in my position due to geography and other demands, this is the generally best I can often hope for as I simply cannot go to festivals, attend few food and beer events, and certainly could not go to this movie. I am comfortable with that reality after writing about beer now for the best part of five years.
From me:And no matter how geographically challenged you are, remember that I love your contrarian nature.And had the film been MY film, it would have been stuffed with interesting ideas! (She says with an arrogant tilt of her nose.)
From me, again:And, yes, Tim, I agree that the film probably (I hope anyway) reached out beyond the beer geek crowd. And, yes, that was my complaint about the pre-screening critics: They don’t seem to get that there’s, ya know, a WORLD out there that doesn’t know about craft brewing.But let me also grab this comment-opportunity (not in response to Tim; just in general) to point out, again, that it’s not my job to be a cheerleader for craft beer. I’m just a historian. Nothing more. Nothing less.
From Andy Crouch, who blogs at beerscribe.comI have to agree with Alan here as I think you’ve got this one backwards. The reason I wrote my first post on the subject back in mid-March was because the blog/web reaction had been uniformly and positively fawning over a film, that as you note, no one had seen or really even knew anything about. Up and until the film was aired, I think the peanut gallery’s reaction was still very positive though a little less fawning after the relentless PR push (by the producers, New Century, but more importantly the blogger audience itself). I think that most of the criticisms raised here were actually delivered post-showing.Best,Andy
Another comment from Alan McLeod:One last thought – I was driving home last night and thought another thought but only remembered it today. That this is all about Wordsworth’s daffodils for me:“For oft, when on my couch I lieIn vacant or in pensive mood,They flash upon that inward eyeWhich is the bliss of solitude;And then my heart with pleasure fills,And dances with the daffodils.”It is all the “truth of the couch” – except with web 2.0 (a term I disagree with as it is not different from usenet) I get the interpretation of the daffodil from a hundred, a thousand folks laying upon the couch in pensive or, more likely, vacant moods.