ROTTEN TOMATOES: Meet a Critic: Lisa Kennedy

Meet a Critic: Lisa Kennedy

Talking movies with the affable Denver Post critic.

by Jen Yamato | January 29, 2008

This week's Meet a Critic brings you a chat with Lisa Kennedy -- vintage film reader, self-deprecating movie aficionado, and film critic for the Denver Post.

RT met Lisa Kennedy at the 2007 Toronto Film Festival, where she was covering films like Into the Wild and Persepolis. The homegrown sports fan -- a Broncos supporter, naturally -- spent 25 years outside of Denver before returning four years ago to take up her...post...at the Post. Returning to the Mile-High city "felt like one of those soap opera characters that has amnesia and then comes back, much older, strange as it seems," but Kennedy has carved out a place in the newspaper's movie section with her well-read, thoughtful musings on film.

Not one for self-importance, Kennedy approaches movies with the same warmth that she shares in conversation -- a fondness for the goodhearted, and an affinity for Golden Age Hollywood classics like The Wizard of Oz, which remains her favorite film. Read on for more discussion with Lisa Kennedy on topics including the remarkable irreverence of outlets like the Village Voice, expanding readers' movie-watching horizons, and the accounting for personal taste (or lack thereof).

How long have you been a critic?

Lisa Kennedy: Four years. Before that I was freelancing in Phoenix, but before that I was at US Magazine, and was at Out Magazine, and was at the Village Voice where I edited the film section for a few years...which is probably how I got my gig. Those writers thought highly enough of me; people thought I knew something about film!

I see you're also very self-deprecating...

LK: I can be, about this thing in particular at some times. [Smiles] Because it's so overwhelming, what people know and what you can catch up with in terms of the history of films. It's ok to be modest about what you know and what you don't. I know my tastes, a little bit more every day, and I know that I am smart about some things...I know that I don't have a tremendous amount of film studies history, and that's just one of those things. It's not deprecating, it's like going, it's ok. That's one of my gaps. And I think it's an ok gap.

I think that's a valuable thing to understand; there's no way one critic or one person can know everything about film.

LK: Well at Rotten Tomatoes, you absolutely know there are people who just know scads about movies that disagree radically about the quality of a movie. And I love that! I loved having a section when I was an editor (of the film section at the Village Voice) where there were four people that I admired tremendously, that I enjoyed reading, and often they didn't agree. And that says something about what movies are for us.

I like the Village Voice because their writers seem freer to be more irreverent than many others. Why do you think that is?

LK: I think they put the "alternative" in alternative newspapers. There was a sense that you could celebrate transgressive cinema, you could celebrate underground cinema, you could celebrate indies before we started to talk about them in relation to Sundance, and to mid-level [studios].

Probably the reason they're irreverent is because they're not trying to guess what their readers' tastes are. I think it's a dangerous thing to do that, and it's a sort of normal thing to do that with magazines and newspapers. But I think it's kind of dangerous, and it does a disservice to their readers as well; to assume that you understand, you almost know what they are, and what their tastes are, so they can't be surprised, and they can't have discovery. They can't feel those things that we get to feel.

You mean some publications might try to predict their readers' preference instead of just giving a critic's own personal take on a movie?

LK: Well, it's such a trick, because your own personal taste has to be involved. It has to sort of encompass more than whatever your wacky taste is. Though I always say I don't really have taste, it's very broad. [Laughing] Some people have taste; I have something else.

So what are your favorite movies?

LK: Well, I don't think this is embarrassing, but it probably sounds less interesting than I feel it is...The Wizard of Oz is my favorite movie. It just is, and it has always been. Whenever I see it I'm still delighted, I still think it's an interesting story, I think that I can read in all kinds of different modern, contemporary parables in it. I just love it. And what are those damn monkeys? Those monkeys still freak me out!

Have you seen Return to Oz? The monkeys are even freakier -- they're on roller skates, on all fours.

LK: That's not right. That's not right! It's enough that they were stomping on Scarecrow...

Probably because I saw them when I was young on television so much, because there wasn't cable, and there weren't DVDs and all this stuff -- I love '30s, '40s, and '50s movies. I know that I really dig that sort of studio system movie, and I think they're kind of amazing and I'm always touched by them. I have a partner, she looks at them...she was watching the Maltese Falcon, and she's just like, "I can't watch this, this is ridiculous!" And -- besides being sacrilege! -- there's something so fascinating about the language you grew up with, or the language that you took to at a young age, so it doesn't shock you. "What do you mean? I find great emotion in this! This is really great cinema!" It looks like bad theater to her, it's so stilted, the acting, and the clutches, and all those things that we love about it.

I know what you mean -- I grew up watching AMC all the time, but all my friends are afraid of watching...

LK: A black and white movie! They're scared! They think they're going to be bored, I think it's fascinating. They're so terrified they're going to be bored -- you know how that is sometimes, 'cause you've seen movies at a festival, going, "I don't want to see it! I have to see it, but I don't want to see it because I don't want to be bored!" And then it surprises you. But people are terrified of black and white movies. It's like, that and subtitles -- "Don't make me read!"

But half of the time, when you actually make your friends watch something, they're like..."That was good!"

LK: I know, you've got to start them off on the easy stuff, like screwball comedies or something. Because they're fun, they're snappy and goofy. Hopefully they take to it. And we have to push them.

Related Items

Critic:	Lisa Kennedy
Source:	Denver Post

(1-19 of 19 posts) | Reply

neumdaddy writes:
on Jan 15 2008 04:22 PM

As a Denver native (no longer there), I can attest to her good reviews.

(Reply to this)

BowieSwimmer writes:
on Jan 15 2008 05:35 PM

Love her.
She's great.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Bowler writes:
on Jan 15 2008 07:27 PM

They are correct about the whole black and white movie subject. I still know more people who don't know what Citizen Kane is than those who do.

(Reply to this)

Bane of Cain writes:
on Jan 29 2008 07:26 PM

As Mr. Bowler said, she really is right about black and white movies. It's a shame people don't watch more of them nowadays. But Lisa is indeed a very good critic. I don't agree with her all the time, but that is just the spirit of film criticism. At the very least, she has not yet led me into seeing a bad movie.

(Reply to this)

Chaotic writes:
on Jan 29 2008 08:44 PM

I live in Denver. Good critic.

(Reply to this)

jeanpaul writes:
on Jan 30 2008 12:49 AM

I'm intrested to ask the critic:
How she explains the fact that so many people consider critics to be detached, and un-synced with what the movie audience really feels and likes (or deslikes) concerning movies.

For instance, the critics (all of them, literally) went HEAD OVER HEELS, praising and worshipping the Coen movie "No country for old men"--- while on the audience level, most people I've talked with, who've seen the movie, deslike it, finding it dissapointing in all levels, theme and storywise.
Many I spoke with found the movie to be too-talkative, lengthy, dissapointing storywise and the character of Havier Bardem to be unrealistic and more out of a superhero comic than reality based (while again all critics are all over themselves hailing his stoic, really nothing special acting--- as something no one has ever seen before. Gimme a break, Christian Bale on a bad day is 100 times better than him in any given day...)

While audience find JOHN RAMBO engaging and worthwhile from beggining to end (Box office records show this) and are liking this movie--- the critics continue to be haughty, condencending and unfair to JOHN RAMBO.

So have the critics really made themselves kings over the tastes of people, without any justification or fairness? It is often so, that movies critics are all "hoo-haah" about--- audience find to be all but crap.

I wonder what a critic has to say about that.

(Reply to this)

The Great One writes:
on Jan 30 2008 07:44 AM

critics shouldnt have to apologize for liking a movie that obviously isnt made for a main stream audience, as is the case with most Oscar nominated films nowadays

(Reply to this)

sfludovissy writes:
on Jan 30 2008 07:57 AM

Agreed about critics being out of synch with mainstream viewers, but I think in the case of No Country for Old men, they weren't that far off. If you look at the Top Critics t-meter, it's a very high 90%, but if you look at the RT community T-meter, it's not very far off at 86% with a much larger sampling of people.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Jan 30 2008 10:15 AM

In reply to this comment (#1540027)
your comment is just straight ignorant. first of all it's 'DISLIKE' now that we have that out of the way, let's face some facts.

the american moviegoing public is generally pretty dumb (meet the spartans at #1 last week, followed closely by rambo at #2, all while a slew of oscar nominated movies are still at the box office). critics shouldn't have to answer to people who go to the movies for escapist thrills or laughs rather than superior filmmaking.

I don't know who your friends are, but i'm guessing they kind of spaced out for no country's opening monologue, as well as the final two conversations featuring tommy lee jones (one with his uncle, the other with his wife). Those scenes are critical in understanding the film, so if they weren't paying attention, that would explain why they didn't care for the movie. otherwise, i can't imagine why you wouldn't love no country.

and as for the jarvier bardem business, i guess you're right and nearly every critic and awards circle is wrong that his was one of the year's finest performances. it was intentionally understated to create a contrast between his eerily calm demenor and his ultra-violent tendencies.

oh and just because audiences went to see rambo opening weekend, doesn't mean they found it 'engaging and worthwhile from beginning to end.' there's no way you could tell that based on box office numbers, let alone week one, when little word-of-mouth has gone around.

so, in closing, critics should not have to pander to people who would rather see a movie like rambo than one like no country. those people are there for a wholly visceral experience and the job of a critic is to dig a bit deeper than that.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Jan 30 2008 10:20 AM

as for the interview itself, nice job jen. i really liked the back-and-forth you guys had going as the conversation progressed, but it felt like this got cut a bit short. the last few interviews have been two pages and felt much more complete. still, keep em comin. (let's get some east coast flava, it seems like every critic has been midwest so far)

(Reply to this)

Jen Yamato writes:
on Jan 30 2008 10:28 AM

jeanpaul, I wonder how representative of most audiences the people you've talked to are in regards to No Country for Old Men. As sfludovissy points out, the user Tomatometer and critics Tomatometer are really not very far apart. With the exception of the ending (which I think is a brilliant filmmaking choice that elevates the film from good thriller to a piece of art that is about something) everyone I know loved it, including Javier Bardem's chilling humorous portrayal of an idiosyncratic movie villain. I would like to believe that most audiences are not closed off to films like this and would not instead prefer to spend 2 hours in a theater watching mindless, pointless extreme violence like that in Rambo, a film that by all indications does not firmly know what it is telling the audience to begin with.

(Reply to this)

Jen Yamato writes:
on Jan 30 2008 10:33 AM

Thanks, dahluzz - for the compliment and the NCFOM thoughts. This interview was actually done way before the recent batch of Meet a Critics, when I met Lisa at the Toronto Film Festival. The next ones should be fuller, and I'll do my best to go coast to coast from here on out. Any requests?

(Reply to this)

grapeantler writes:
on Jan 30 2008 11:18 AM

JeanPaul - maybe your sampling of the "public" is based off the fact that you obviously don't hang around people who like to be challenged. I don't know anyone personally that hasn't liked No Country For Old Men. So that's MY representation of the public. Obviously we must be part of different crowds. And the fact that you'd want critics to cater to a large audience over their personal and educated tastes is all sorts of depressing.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Jan 30 2008 12:15 PM

In reply to this comment (#1540814)
i gotta rep beantown and say Boston Globe critic Ty Burr. not the best-known, but his reviews are very evenhanded and his writing is filled with rich imagery. He deffinately offers a northeast edge and could make for a fun interview. I've also heard a lot of love for A.O. Scott, so if you can rope a NY Timeser, that would be huge.

(Reply to this)

jeanpaul writes:
on Jan 31 2008 03:46 AM

Jeez, you guys are are condencending and arrogant as the critics you are all so in love with.

If a person likes JOHN RAMBO --- and if any of you guys got any guts, go and ask anyone coming out of the theatre after seeing JOHN RAMBO -- if they desliked it. I know I asked atleast 5 people who came out of "No country" and found it to be "critic worship without any legitimate basis". I have yet to find 5 people who did not like JOHN RAMBO-- apart from condencending, arrogant critics and people who will take any crap-- as long as it's coen crap--- and hail it as "challenging cinema".
Gimme a break. Try to find some fairness in yourself atleast.

If someone enjoys JOHN RAMBO and is NOT afraid to admit to it-- unlike haughty critics-- that doesn't mean that that person has no "good taste" in cinema like that proudy and arrogant Dahluzz says above. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see Coen bros. direct a grand scale movie such as JOHN RAMBO is on every scale, where the amount of the "superior acting or cinema" does not come down to two actors sitting around and exchanging sentences in southern accents. Give me a break. Get down from the cloud you guys have put yourselves on.

Bottom line is, people like Dahluzz and "No country" worshippers will gobble anything as long as it has been deemed by critic elite as "superior cinema"--- even if it is the case or even if it isin't. As long as critics worship anything Coen brothers related, and TRASH anything Stallone related-- people like Dahluzz and Jen Yamato will simply pull in line with the stigma--- regardless to what is TRUELY more entertaining cinema.

Dahluzz, you've put yourself on too high a pedestal, calling the entire American public "generally pretty dumb". Its a long way down, for anyone that 'high'. It's you who are kind of "pretty dumb" and not in a 'general' way.

(Reply to this)

Jen Yamato writes:
on Jan 31 2008 11:05 AM

Actually, jeanpaul, I like No Country when I saw it at Cannes back in May 2007, before any reviews came out, so you can't argue that I like it because I'm "supposed to" or anything like that.

And I do generally like the Coens' work - especially Lebowski, which one might argue is not a film of theirs that aims for any particularly arty/lofty goals.

For the record, I like Stallone as a filmmaker - I even enjoyed Stayin' Alive, for goodness sake. He seems very self-aware, especially so on the press tour for John Rambo, which I respect.

I personally don't think onscreen violence, especially that done to extremes, has any particular entertainment value. It's not that I think people that enjoy such violence have poor taste - some of my critic friends enjoyed it, in fact -- but I would hope that those that enjoy the bloody ride at least think about what a film is saying about violence itself. For example, is Stallone pro- or anti-war in John Rambo? I'd like to think he's trying to convey the dehumanizing nature of violence by showing how awful it is, but how many ticket buyers who go see the movie do you think are even cognizant of that?

Regardless, everyone (including and especially movie critics) is entitled to their own opinion, shaped by their respective experiences. If someone can sincerely explain why they like or dislike a film, that's what earns my respect. That goes for critics, friends, strangers, users, and even you, jeanpaul.

(Reply to this)

jeanpaul writes:
on Feb 01 2008 06:01 AM

Jen Yamato, it's pretty funny what you claim, if one really pays attention to the details or your comment.

You claim that you don't think onscreen voilence has any particular entertainment value, while at the same time, you and critics all over, are hailing the detestable character of Havier Bardem in "No country", and it seems you guys cant have enough of that.

The character of Havier Bardem (quite alike so many characters in a Coen movie) is the most voilent, detestable, ugly, immoral and base character to be seen. You and your critic friends don't seem to mind that character's voilence. Funny, didn't seem that you felt that voilence has no entertainment value in particular, when it came to the character of Havier Bardem in "No Country"-- who at the end of the movie, comes and like a destestable, ****ing coward, kills a helpless woman whose husband is dead.

This kind of destestable, ugly voilence, when it's Havier Bardem in a Coen movie, is something you and your critic friends "hail" and worship without end. After all, it's "coen voilence" now, isin't it?

If you did NOT understand if JOHN RAMBO is pro-war or anti-war, it's clear as crystal, that you did not pay attention to any of the scences with RAMBO in the movie. And, the only you couldn't pay attention to what that character is saying is if you CHOSE deliberately to not do so.

When killing monsters, it's not unoccasionaly that the monster slayer becomes like a monster himself. John Rambo admits to that, unless the speakers in the theater you were in were not working--- you'd hear that.
"THIS IS WHAT WE DO. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE.", he says.
While being busy figuring out if JOHN RAMBO is pro or anti-war-- JOHN RAMBO is out there doing what needs to be done, to first and formost, stop evil in it's tracks. ONLY someone who didn't care to understand this character of JOHN RAMBO-- and totally chose to ignore this character throughout RAMBO movies one to four, could think that he is "Pro-war"...

Unlike the detestable coward Havier Bardem is in "No country", he (Rambo) doesn't excuse his actions, by citing phylosophical bullcrap. John Rambo doesnt' need to explain himself, but he does it far better than Coen characters, who are simply blurry in-order to fit into the bullcrap "artsy" nische.

It's funny that when uglier voilence is shown in a Coen movie, it's "art".
While voilence (and in JOHN RAMBO you get to see the real, untamed account of what happens when one is shot with a weapon, unlike the "artsy" accounts in the Coen movies) that comes from a Stallone movie-- is shunned at by critics.
The voilence in JOHN RAMBO repels against voilence far better than whatever is done in "No country". One can also argue, that it is the Coen brothers's movie which actually hails voilence-- and the critics prove this by hailing Havier Bardem's detestable character.

I mean, really, how two-faced can critics be?

(Reply to this)

ozzie_bruce writes:
on Feb 14 2008 05:05 AM

jeanpaul, brilliant! Jen Yamato and dahluzz (and other tosser critics) are not worthy. It's been 15 days and they're still trying gather their thoughts for a comeback.
LIVE FOR NOTHING
OR DIE FOR SOMETHING!

(Reply to this)

djwoogiefresh writes:
on Sep 02 2008 08:10 AM

In reply to this comment (#1473183)
Can you take some time to tell me what you know about Citizen kane?

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Lisa Kennedy

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links