[ad_1]
Dennis Harvey, the veteran film critic whose review of Promising Young Woman sparked an uproar in the industry, has hit back at accusations of misogyny amid calls for Variety to fire him.
Harvey’s review was posted over a year ago, after the film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. Largely positive, he called Mulligan’s performance “skillful, entertaining and empowering” while also questioning the central cast. While “a good actress,” wrote Harvey, Mulligan “seems a bit of an odd choice as this apparent femme fatale on many levels.”
Discussing in more depth the character’s deliberate artifice, Harvey noted that “Margot Robbie is a producer here, and one can (perhaps too easily) imagine that the role would have been intended for her once. While with this star, Cassie wears her bait-collecting gear like a bad slut; even her long blond hair seems to be strung on.
Mulligan objected to the criticism, telling the New York Times in December: “I felt like it was basically saying that I wasn’t hot enough to pull off that kind of trick.
“It made me so mad… I was like, ‘Really? For this film, are you going to write something so transparent? Now? In 2020? ‘I just couldn’t believe it.
Variety responded by adding an editor’s note to the top of Harvey’s review, apologizing for “callous language,” but leaving his words untouched.
Mulligan reiterated his discomfort during the review earlier this week in a video interview hosted by Variety, prompting further abuse from the reviewer on social media.
Speaking to The Guardian, Harvey said he was uncomfortable with how Mulligan’s words to the New York Times describing his anger at the magazine had become received wisdom as to what his review was actually saying. . “I did do not saying or even wanting to say that Mulligan is ‘not hot enough’ for the role, ”Harvey said.
“I am a 60 year old gay man. I don’t really dwell on the comparative tendencies of young actresses, let alone write about it.
Harvey added that he was “appalled to be seen as misogynist, which is something very foreign to my personal beliefs or my politics. It couldn’t be more horrible to me than if someone had pretended that I was an enthusiastic Trump supporter.
Harvey said he avoided the social media talk sparked by the spillover advice from friends who said no one commenting seemed to have read the review and some people said, “I have to advocate rape, I was probably a predator like the men in the movie. “.
“What I was trying to write was the emphasis in the film and [Mulligan’s] performance on disguise, role-playing and deliberate misdirection. Mentioning Margot Robbie did not mean to be a “seemingly personal” comparison either.
“Robbie is the producer of the film, and I mentioned her just to highlight how the cast contributes to the subversive content of the film – a star associated with a character like Harley Quinn. [Robbie’s Suicide Squad character] might raise very specific expectations, but Mulligan is a chameleon and his highly stylized performance prevents the viewer from knowing where the story is going.
Harvey admitted that he may not have expressed such a sentiment specifically enough in his review, but that he was motivated by a desire to keep the plot twists hidden from the public.
“I assumed that the filmmakers who created such a complex, layered film wouldn’t interpret what I wrote as some kind of simplistic sexism. And while Carey Mulligan certainly has a right to interpret the review however she wants, her projection suggesting that she’s “ not hot enough ” is, to me, just plain weird. I’m sorry she feels this way. But I’m also sorry that this is a conclusion she would jump to, because it is a step forward.
Mulligan publicists have yet to respond to the Guardian’s request for comment.
Harvey also pointed to the disconnect between the reaction of the star of the film and its US distributor, who “immediately requested permission to use several pullquotes of the magazine in their marketing a year ago.”
He also questioned the timing of the controversy, noting that his review had apparently been deemed flawless enough to evade complaint for 11 months, “until the film was finally released, promoted and campaigned for. Oscars”. It was only then that his criticism was “belatedly described as” insensitive “and signaled by an official” apology “.
Variety’s editors had not raised any concerns about the review when it was first filed, Harvey said, or in the months following until the New York Times article.
His professional fate remains uncertain. “It remains to be seen whether, after 30 years of writing for Variety, I will now be fired because of the content of the review that no one found offensive until it became the fodder of an article by viral trend. “
[ad_2]
Source link