SCREENVILLE: Alert: Australia is censoring the internet!

"That's why his online journal, Rouge (where most of the articles are his) didn't publish anything in 2 years. That's why he promised since 2006 and never made an online archive site for all his articles... That's how much he believes in the internet (the instantaneousness of internet). I believe what I see. I'm not moved whatsoever by political pandering."
I give you 24 hours to remove these sorts of libellous statements from your blog site. You don't have a clue what you are talking about in these regards. You don't know anything about me or my life or my work. Just recall, if you can, that I was someone who encouraged you and and published you.
ADRIAN MARTIN (email 22 March 2011)

OMG I'm gonna change my FB status to "threatened".

A "real critic" would retort, rebut, refute, rebuff, confound, confute, debunk, disconfirm... You know, sticking with verbal engagement, and rational reasoning. But he chose CENSORSHIP. That's not very "open-minded", or "critical". Maybe he knows more about "fascistic methods" than I gave him credit for after all. That's very interesting. He believes he has the right to be the editor of my own personal blog!

Quick reality check : when you publish in a well known institutional newspaper, or when you speak out on a mass media like TV, or when you speak in the name of an entire profession, say, at an international festival... you don't just speak for yourself, you commit the reputation of your host, and your responsibility for what you say is proportional to the size of the readership/audience.
On the other hand, when you write in a personal diary, such as a blog, you only engage yourself (whoever that is). Try be Justin Bieber for a day, you will swiftly give up the hope that you can control the way individual people in the world talk about you on their blogs... Control freak!

Why the hurry? I think he watches way too many American TV series...

Since he kindly refers to my article published in Rouge, "CNN's election night hologram", I asked for a correction after publication, because I credited an eight-way split screen to CNN instead of CNBC. It took him over 2 weeks (the "instantaneousness of the internet" he told me when he asked me to translate this article from French to English within 1 or 2 weeks! last minute call for a magazine that barely publishes once a year!!! plus another film review, which I didn't do cause I'm not working a full-time job for him) to copy/paste the sentence I emailed him to correct a HTML page on his website! I can tell he's got double standards when it comes to right a wrong, especially when it's about HIM.

Libel : "a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression"

Apparently he thinks that stating facts is defamatory to him... Rouge didn't publish since 2009 (fact). His filmcritic.com.au personal archive grand opening is still pending (fact).

The only inaccuracy would be "most of the articles are his", which is clearly a sarcastic hyperbole (good luck taking that to court!), just like he wrote in Filmkrant (March 2011) : "More usually, minimalist/contemplative films end with murders by shooting or knifing" which is demonstrably false, but it doesn't stop him from stating it, not as a personal opinion on his own blog, but in an official magazine! Will he correct it within 24h?? He's giving bad publicity to "contemplative cinema"... Nobody is going to sue him for it.

Headline : "Humorless film critic declares war on sarcasm"... you have a chance to earn a segment on theonion.com !

When more than 2 of the articles (per issue) in a magazine are yours, the editor's, you're dangerously slipping in self-promotion and auto-publication. Nothing prohibited here, unless you have journalistic ethics... I'm merely pointing at the obvious, is it defamatory to suggest he publishes more of his own articles than any other single contributor in his magazine?

The rest of my quote is only me sharing my opinion, which doesn't have to be true, since I only speak for myself. If the opinion police was effective, all of this Rotterdam roundtable would have been censored.

Am I still allowed to declare : "I believe what I see. I'm not moved whatsoever by political pandering." or is it defamatory to Mister Adrian Martin? We're not under the Soviet regime, you know. People are allowed to express opinions in the free world.

Who cares about Mister Adrian Martin's personal life? Is that his excuse to cop out of a legitimate criticism of his declarations? More than anybody else, a critic should respect and defend the freedom of expression and critical scrutiny. "Criticism" isn't only about things you agree with, you gotta accept and defend criticism that is unfavorable to you too (especially when the statements criticized are a lot of B.S.), like Voltaire. Your life has nothing to do with this. As soon as you make the choice to jump on your soapbox and make public declarations, you should be aware of the consequences, and prepare to be accountable for everything you say. That's the price of celebrity. Deal with it, or stick to your personal life away from public criticism.

Parting reminder : he insinuates that since he published one article for me, I "owe" him. Does he actually imply that granting exposition to my article (in a publication celebrating critical values) somehow strips me of my right to criticize anything concerning him, like if I was his vassal? He's got a disturbing perception of the duty and privileges of an editor.

If I had to balance, upfront, the publication of an article with my future liberty to speak up on anything he writes or says, there is no doubt in my mind I would have declined the offer, clearly and definitely, for its dodgy bargain, if not out of critical principles.

I published one new article of his, Chantal Akerman : Walking Woman, unedited, at Unspoken Cinema too... Apparently it doesn't mean anything to him. He didn't even notify me when he re-published it in a Chilean edition ( in ¿Qué es el cine moderno?), didn't even credit the Unspoken Cinema blog for first publishing it... (that's how much he supports the internet over the Press!) But who cares? Double standards all the way! Did he pay me respect because of it? No. He insulted me by email, calling me "racist" (ME a racist? Are you fucking kidding me???), just because I expressed my disagreement about an arguable theoretical point in an interview of him I happened to have prepared (for Indian Auteur)! Is that how you deal with adversity and dissent, you just play the "racist card"? (see : Ad Hominem in Critical Debate (Adrian Martin)) You should be ashamed. Obviously, this is a man who is very cautious about libel and knowing people's personal lives before calling them names... How I hate hypocrites!!!

Of all the critical points I raised about this Rotterdam roundtable, he takes offence for this harmless quote???

If he wasn't against "common sense" he would have gone for the easier angle...

I misquoted his Sight and Sound article, but I already corrected by myself (before his threatening email), because I had a doubt about my recollection and double-checked at the library. He cited Wong kar-wai and Tsai Ming-liang (not Haneke, which probably comes from elsewhere).

The "We created Apichatpong's celebrity into existence" speech doesn't come from this particular article as well, I read it somewhere else apparently.

He could also take exception about me not listing Raul Ruiz (one entire issue dedicated to him) in my Rouge survey, since it is a named mentioned on the roundtable. But he's the only one namedropping Ruiz. The names of contention repeated by almost everyone, were Tarr, Diaz, Alonso... who embody for the British press the "slow festival film" decadence that caused so much noise this past year. Ruiz wasn't part of it at any point.
My point was that Rouge is mostly about older films and filmmaker (and this is verifiable), not really about very recent cinema (post-2000) like he claimed.

He could also complain that he mentioned an Australian name, his newspaper co-worker, which disproves the 100% American namedrop. Although, no offence, his colleague is not a referential figure like Ebert or Rosenbaum.

Instead of welcoming a critical debate, with a new point of view and some legit objections, people who call themselves critics resort to censorship to shut down any possible debate. I think it's sad. Unfortunately, it's not the kind of attitude that will improve the climate of film discourse... Don't you dare qualify my rational arguments of typical unsubstantiated blogosphere drivel. I took the time to engage with your reflexion and I respected your quotes, which context is freely verifiable at the links I respectfully provided.

Please contact my lawyers for further negotiations. ;)

Oh by the way, I'm still interested in your articles on Apichatpong, Costa, Diaz, Tarr that you mentioned on the roundtable and that I'm not aware of.

P.S. I post this here, cause he only replies to emails when he wants. And I just do not email people who don't email back.