Stephen Farber
Beyond The Criticism
by Lucas Mirabella
What do you know about film critics? You’ve read their
reviews, heard their opinions on hundreds of subjects and
even seen a few of their faces. But what do you really know
about film critics beyond their words on the page? Unless a
friend or family member belongs to this profession, the
answer is probably very little.
Which is why this month we’ve decided to profile Stephen
Farber, president of the Los Angeles Film Critics
Association, film critic for the Hollywood Reporter and host
of Reel Talk, a popular Los Angeles-based film series. On
top of being an active member of the film community for over
forty years, Farber is also one of the top moderators of
panel discussions around town, having conducted hundreds of
interviews with many of the industry’s biggest names. He’s
also written several acclaimed books on film: “Hollywood
Dynasties” and “Outrageous Conduct: Art, Ego, and The
Twilight Zone Case” among them, and penned screenplays for
some of the most distinguished filmmakers of his
generation.
Farber’s passion for cinema began at a young age. His
father, a lawyer in Cleveland, was an enthusiastic moviegoer
and used to take Stephen and his sister to Saturday
matinees. But it wasn’t until his teenage years that he
discovered film criticism.
After being exposed to some of the more intellectual critics
like Dwight McDonald of Esquire and Stanley Kauffman of The
New Republic, Farber realized that not everybody had the
gushy opinions he was used to reading in movie magazines and
his local paper. “As a kid, I enjoyed most movies so I was
in sync with that positive point of view,” Farber recalled.
“Then I started reading these much harsher critiques,
particularly of Hollywood movies like Ben-Hur, and I was
very intrigued because they were well-written by smart
people and they seemed to make very convincing cases against
these movies. I started thinking, ‘Oh, there’s another way
to look at some of these movies.’”
Farber began writing for his high school newspaper,
eventually working his way up to editor. Around then, The
Cleveland Press held a movie review contest for all the high
school critics and columnists in the area. Needless to say,
Farber took the prize. “I got an all-expenses-paid trip to
Hollywood in 1960 and stayed at the Hollywood Roosevelt
Hotel, which was very glamorous at that time,” Farber
remembered fondly. “I went on tours of the studios, observed
movie sets and met some actors including Elvis Presley,
Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis. It was very exciting and I
think I got hooked then.”
While pursuing an English degree at Amherst, Farber
maintained his passion for cinema by writing about film and
theater for the college paper. It was during this period
that he had a very memorable encounter with two of the most
famous movie stars of the day. After writing a theater
review of a New York production of Hamlet starring Richard
Burton, Farber’s father, impressed by his son’s review, sent
Burton a copy. Amazingly, not only did Burton respond, he
arranged orchestra seats and backstage passes for Farber. “I
went with my sister, a cousin and a friend in New York,” he
recalled. “We were joking as we were walking backstage about
how funny it would be if Liz Taylor was there. So we walked
in and my sister sat down on the couch without even looking
and right next to her was Elizabeth Taylor! We met her and
chatted a bit with Burton. It was quite exciting.”
Following Amherst, Farber went to graduate school for
English at UC-Berkeley. During this time, he had his first
essay published in Film Quarterly. Gaining recognition from
one of the leading film publications of the day gave Farber
the push he needed to pursue film full-time. He transferred
to UCLA film school and went on to earn a Masters in Theater
Arts.
Farber’s development as a film critic coincided with the
emergence of influential critic Pauline Kael, who at the
time was just beginning her long tenure at The New Yorker.
He reached out to Kael in the late ‘60s, sending some
reviews in hopes of a critique, and met her shortly
thereafter when she guest lectured at UCLA. By this point,
Farber was already on Kael’s radar through his essays in
Film Quarterly. As he got to know firsthand, Kael didn’t
mince words.
“After the lecture, I was invited to meet with her
privately,” Farber recalled. “She said, ‘You’re a very
fluent writer, but often you overvalue these films and
you’re not critical enough of them.’ She also wrote me a
critique saying I was too indulgent. I preferred writing
positive things about movies I liked rather than a
denunciation of movies I didn’t like. Although Pauline did
like a negative essay I wrote about “The Graduate,” a
contrarian point of view of a movie that everyone loved at
the time. But I disagreed with her on a number of things so
she wasn’t that interested in sponsoring me.”
Still, Farber found a balance in his own writing through the
example set by well-argued critics like Kael. Regarding her
influence, Farber said, “I liked her writing because she
would bring a lot of her personal experience into her
commentary. It wasn’t just writing about film. She would
bring her knowledge and wisdom about life into her reviews.
To some extent I was influenced by that, although I didn’t
have the confidence to go quite as far as she did in
bringing so much personal experience into reviews. I think
everybody liked her conversational tone and tried to model
their writing on that. But I was not in agreement with her
about a lot of movies.”
Modern film criticism, Farber noted, isn’t in the same class
as it once was. Part of this can be attributed to the
downfall of print publishing and the diminished standards
that are part and parcel with online journalism, but Farber
thinks the main problem is a monolithic thinking among
critics. “There’s definitely a group-think about a lot of
filmmakers,” he explained. “For example, I don’t agree with
a lot of critics about Paul Thomas Anderson. He’s really
loved by a large number of critics and I don’t get him at
all. I’ve always tried to be more independent. I just try to
have an honest response to what I see and sometimes don’t
get the enthusiasm of critics. I also think critics today
aren’t nearly as cogent or as likely to make me rethink my
opinion. This isn’t always the case, but I find most of
their arguments not at all convincing.”
I wondered how Farber felt about the current state of the
film industry. He expressed a longing for the days of
socially relevant, character driven fare that used to be a
staple of every studio’s output, but has since been replaced
by franchises, comic books, and effects-driven movies.
Independent cinema still thrives on these types of films,
but Farber contends that it’s not what it used to be. “There
was more excitement when these films were made with big
actors like Paul Newman,” Farber explained. “They had good
production values and were very professionally made on a
certain budget. Now you will see these big actors
occasionally doing independent films because they’re
frustrated and can’t find interesting movies being made at
the studios. But oftentimes these are very tiny movies that
just don’t have the excitement they did in earlier
years.”
When asked about the films from this past year he felt were
underappreciated, Farber voiced disbelief that the only
movies nominated for Academy Awards were released in the
last three months of the year. “People completely forgot
that there were other movies that came out earlier in the
year that were very good,” said Farber. “’Fruitvale Station’
was a fantastic movie that won awards at Sundance and got
great reviews but was completely overlooked at the end of
the year. It should have been acknowledged for the
performances. That was a small independent movie but very
powerful, dealt with important subject matter and really had
an emotional impact.
“’Mud’ was another excellent movie. well written, well
acted, had a very unique flavor to it, again got great
reviews, but was completely forgotten and overlooked. And
then there was ‘42,’ which was a little bit simplistic and
overly slick but still a great story about the first black
player to play major league baseball. An important subject,
well acted, a very well done period film.”
Many people consider film critics as having a dream job. Who
wouldn’t want to watch movies for a living? I asked Farber
what was his favorite part of being a film critic. “Well
it’s not exactly construction work or garbage collection!”
he conceded. “It’s a lot more pleasant. I still enjoy seeing
movies so it’s fun to do it. But there’s so many movies
being released it can get oppressive at times. There are
days where I have two or three screenings and you don’t have
time for anything else, so that can be a little
overwhelming. Luckily, I’m at a fortunate point now where to
some degree I can pick and choose the things I see.”
As for the future, Farber looks forward to other forms of
writing, including screenplays, a memoir and possibly even a
novel. “I’d like to write a book about my experiences and
some of the people I’ve met. I have some pretty good stories
from over the years and people are always interested in
Hollywood insider stories so I think that would be a lot of
fun. I’ve also enjoyed working on documentary projects and
would like to do more on film history. “
And of course, there’s Reel Talk, Farber’s weekly film
series that features preview screenings of highly
anticipated films followed by a panel discussion with the
talent involved. Farber derives a lot of pleasure from Reel
Talk, as it gives him an opportunity to speak in depth with
the filmmakers and open a dialogue with the audience,
something writers don’t often have the opportunity to do.
Between that and his Anniversary Classics series, a similar
concept as Reel Talk except with classic films and Hollywood
legends as guest speakers, Farber shows no signs of letting
up.