I’ve been lambasted by a number of Spy readers after declaring Everything Everywhere All at Once trash after watching only 20 minutes of the film. I was called unprofessional, stupid, bigoted, and worse. The more polite readers shared their experiences with the film, with several indicating that they, too, found the opening of the film tedious or chaotic but came to like, or even love the film after giving it a chance.
Setting aside the name-calling, the Spy readers who criticized me are right, sort of. If I could write the piece again, I would watch the entire movie before commenting on it. But I say “sort of” because what I did—rely on a first impression—is something most of us do most of the time.
I trust my gut, rely on my own eyes, and “know what I like.” But I also agree with Ronald Reagan’s advice of trust but verify. I “verify” when my first impression leaves enough of a doubt that I suspect error or conclude that my first impression is not sufficient to serve as the basis for a conclusion.
Over the years, I have reached thousands of conclusions based on first impressions and live comfortably with those conclusions every day. Some conclusions may be wrong, but if they have minimum impact on others, what is the harm in living with them? As I see it, it is my business.
A few examples of first impressions that led to conclusions are my distrust of Fiat and Chevrolet branded vehicles. I worked at a gas station in Germany many years ago and encountered what I recall was an endless string of mechanical failures that the drivers of the Fiats who stopped in for gasoline had experienced. I remember parts falling off the interiors of the cars and owners seeking help in reattaching them. In the case of Chevrolets, a friend had a miserable little car called a Chevette (not to be confused with a Corvette). One day we were driving down Route 95 and the engine suddenly died. I have not trusted a Chevy since.
Other examples of first impressions include food (if the first bite tastes awful, the rest likely will stay the same), music (if the first few bars cause a headache, the remainder could kill you), and politicians (Trump lost me in 2015 with his bigoted rhetoric as he rode down a golden escalator to announce his candidacy for the presidency.)
If I extrapolated the criticism I received on my comments on Everything Everywhere, I would buy a Fiat and drive it for a year or two to determine whether the company has resolved its quality issues. I would give Donald Trump a second chance, reread The Art of the Deal and a dozen or so of his other books, and quit describing him as a threat to American Democracy.
As you might guess, I’m not about to shut up about Trump until he leaves the political stage. In so doing, I accept that I will continue to provoke anger on the part of his base of supporters, whom, by the way, seem to consist of people who seem indifferent to sedition, sexual harassment, grift, racism, and a lot more.
Speaking out against Donald Trump is, in my view, doing readers a favor. Even if my “research” on Trump is incomplete, if my opinion prompts anyone to reconsider their support of Trump, I am doing good.
Similarly, when I offer an opinion about Easton, saying that it is a great place to live or visit, I confess that there are things about Easton that I don’t know. Maybe if I knew more about Easton I would tell people to visit Chestertown or Cambridge before visiting Easton. Is that a problem? Is it unprofessional to praise Easton, endorse a restaurant where I enjoyed a good meal, or to opine that Toyota makes better cars than another company? I do not think so.
Even when writing comments on the Oscar awards and particular movies, I think it is OK to share one’s opinions. A condition on commenting, of course, is that one’s comments should not be racist or hurtful to anyone. But advising people to avoid particular films, silence certain music, support Ukraine in repelling Russia, and to embrace social equity and justice, is not wrong. Isn’t opinion writing what that term means—sharing opinions? When a writer puts his or her name on a piece, it implies it is an opinion. And for those who accused my criticism of Everything Everywhere of being racist, how do they defend the gratuitous violence against police and IRS agents in the film?
After reviewing the criticism of my criticism of Everything Everywhere, I have decided to continue to offer opinions on politics, culture, social justice, and even movies. I made that decision after reading and considering the comments I received. I did not read every comment, but I read enough to know that I should have watched all of Everything Everywhere before commenting on it. I also am confident that had I watched the entire film, I still would not have liked it. It is not a crime to admit that. And, come to think of it, I told my readers I had not watched the entire film before condemning it as “trash” so they could take that into account in deciding whether my opinion was worthy of their consideration.
J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.
russell stone says
I Guess I am a little confused. Is the Talbot Spy nothing but opinions since all the articles have an authors name on it?
I believe you stated. “When a writer puts his or her name on a piece, it implies it is an opinion”
Maybe opinions articles should be clearly marked as such? After all everyone is allowed an opinion.
Mickey Terrone says
Well, John, as a person who has not seen the movie in question, I will suggest to you without equivocation, that Hollywood movies and Academy Awards are rarely worth serious public commentary or passionate debate. I was surprised to see that you wrote about that subject.
My view is that your articles are usually factual, moderate and offer reasonable, well expressed opinions. Keep it up. With respect to cinema, as we used to say in Brooklyn, “Fuggedaboudit!”
Mickey Terrone
Oxford, MD
John Dean says
Thank you for reading the piece and commenting. I wrote on the Oscars to take a bit of a break from politics and plan to return to politics next week. I had planned to write about Trump’s indictment but, as you know, it did not happen on Tuesday as the ex-president announced.
In any case, thank you for your kind words.
Charles Zvirman says
I confess I was also one of those who read your review and scratched my head wondering how anyone might watch just 20 minutes of a film and render an opinion. I can’t say it was my style of movie either – perhaps it’s an age thing – but I respect its appeal to a different generation of movie goers and it’s inventive filmmaking and storytelling.
‘Everything’ aside, may I ask what you would have voted for as best picture? I believe you referenced Tar, Fableman’s and Banshees – so again, just out of curiosity, which one and why?
John Dean says
Thank you for reading the piece.
I admit that I should have watched the entire film before commenting on it, still believe the film did not deserve best picture. I would have voted for Tar, the Cate Blanchett film about a classical music conductor. It was a great film in every way.
Please note I have no problem with the many people who liked Everything Everwhere. I am not a fan of science fiction, multiverses, slow-motion martial arts, or stylized violence. That colored my assessment of the film’s merits.
Eva M. Smorzaniuk MD says
Poor Mr. Dean! You did get beat up a bit. However, I do agree that 20 minutes , while enough time to know that you dont care for the move, is not enough time to pass judgment on the entire film. Im not sure it qualified as “best picture” material, but it was like a breath catching roller coaster ride. Granted, it was a bit of a mash-up of overact imaginations and, likely, a few nightmares. The plot was chaotic but led to a conclusion that was quite tender and heartfelt. I would still recommend that you see it, despite the fact that it didn’t follow a formulaic story line. I think the ending will convince you it is far more rewarding to be kind than to be grumpy.
John Dean says
Thank you for your comment. I may yet watch it again after reading the many comments in the Spy and elsewhere suggesting it is a great film.
You are right that I should have watched the entire film before commenting. If I could do it over again, I would do that.
Richard Marks says
No particular comment on the value or credence in first impressions, but I do have a few observations on the movie. At least, my reaction to the film.
I first saw it in a theater with my daughter and fell asleep. She loved the movie. The second time I watched it at home with my wife and fell asleep again. In full transparency, most movies for me are like taking a sleeping pill so I have a reputation in our family of dozing off quite often.
My son, Gregory, thought it was one of the best films ever made! He went to film school and was always acutely observant as a child and had a very keen eye particularly appreciating the film editing processes. I greatly value his opinion so told him I would try to watch it again.
He responded to my gesture. “Great, Dad, this time I suggest you watch it in the morning”. Did I mention he also has a sense of humor?
John Dean says
Thank you for sharing your experience.
I think that if I watch it again, it will be in the morning. My son also has suggested I give the film another chance. He has seen it three times and describes it as “awesome.”