Brush with Lameness
Dorrk.com earns the scorn of a minor celebrity
On New Year’s Eve 2002 I received an unexpected email from an unlikely source, and after getting a good laugh out of it with my family and friends, I’ve now decided to change the relevant names and film titles and let it breathe.
For the most part it seems like Dorrk.com and my DVD reviews exist only in a vacuum. Although I hear about how over 3000 people a day read the DVD Journal and that my own stats show several hundred a month visit Dorrk.com, feedback is sparse. When there is feedback, it comes from regular Joes, like ourselves, with no vested interests except the hope of finding something mildly entertaining (or, more commonly, severely vexing).
Such was not the case with Smithy K. Rybaby (name changed to protect me), director or producer of Stoners, Dipshits, Head Up My Ass, Crass and Playing With Myself (all film titles changed, as well), and vituperative opponent of film critics. Smithy K. Rybaby — before I took him too seriously I verified that is was in fact him; the email address he used matches that on his official web site — spent his early New Year’s Eve, it appears, reading my DVD Journal reviews of his work, and then carefully surfing Dorrk.com before firing off a message that began a surely pointless but nevertheless entertaining exchange which appears, unedited, below:
— Original Message — From: <juvenileinjoke@hotmail.com> To: <dorrk.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 9:23 PM Subject: My apologies
Hey,
I’m sorry the world has yet to discover the brilliance of you, but lashing out at me because I have an audience is hardly going to correct that cosmic oversight.
In your review of “Crass” you refer to “Rybaby’s delusionally rabid fans.” Why is it that just because you don’t like my work, those that do must be delusional?
Calm down, man. You may not have a job currently, but you’ve got a wife. That’s really all that matters in life: love. Be happy.
And stop being such a condescending, judgmental asshole. You’re not an authority on cinema, you’re a guy who watches DVD’s. Besides — based on a read of some of your own exercises in self-expression on display at your website (the plays, short films, songs), I’d say you’re hardly in a position to criticize others.
Smithy K. Rybaby
— Original Message — From: “Greg Dorr” <dorrk.com> To: <juvenileinjoke@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 9:48 PM Subject: Re: My apologies
No need to apologize, whether you’re actually Smithy K. Rybaby or one of his rabid fans acting out a delusion.
On the contrary to your surprisingly thin-skinned assertion below, we’re all in a position to criticize. Some of us think that criticism actually improves us, makes us work harder, do better.
There’s no “cosmic oversight” haunting my life, but thanks for asking. Thanks for taking the time to go through my site. If you didn’t enjoy yourself, so be it. I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.
Consider it karmic retribution for Stoners.
(By the way, while I don’t necessarily enjoy your films — not everyone will — I will say that I do admire your skillful self-promotion. You deserve your success. Don’t let my review of Crass sully it. Be happy.)
— Original Message — From: <juvenileinjoke@hotmail.com> To: <dorrk.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 10:03 AM Subject: Re: My apologies
In a message dated 12/31/02 9:49:15 PM, dorrk.com writes: > On the contrary to your surprisingly thin-skinned assertion below, Ah, the standard defense of the self-styled internet pundit: call the subject who objects to an obviously biased review “thin-skinned.” This party line allows the critic to toss off pithy armchair analyses along the order of…
” Rybaby’s characters talk for the sake of hearing their own cleverness, and proudly throw around big words with little comprehension or motivation. One gets the feeling that Rybaby is much the equally insufferable”
> we’re all in a position to criticize. In theory, yes (particularly when the critic him/herself has had zero luck in achieving their professional or creative goals). But this…
“Smithy K. Rybaby’s infamous low-budget blockbuster has a lot to say about hip youth culture. Namely, that a sloppy mixture of moronic rants and awkward pop culture references can sucker dollars out even the most media-jaded hipster’s
wallet. Rybaby was lucky enough (or perhaps this is the extent of his talent) to write, direct, and produce a crude-talking, media savvy independent film right after Quentin Tarantino made it cool to like crude-talking, media-savvy, independent films.”
…is not a criticism. That’s the bleating of the befuddled would-be iconoclast who can’t figure out why few see the world as clearly as he does.
> Some of us think that criticism actually improves us, makes us work harder, > do better. Count me in. I can benefit from well-written, smartly observed criticism. But your “Stoners” review is merely a write-off. A write-off is not a criticism; a write-off is just bitter and closed-minded, and comes off more like jealous ramblings than anything else.
> Thanks for taking the time to go through my site. If you didn’t enjoy > yourself, so be it. I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. > Consider it karmic retribution for Stoners. Sir, there is no retribution, karmic or otherwise, that would make up for the time I wasted reading the lyrics to “Saturday Girl.”
> (By the way, while I don’t necessarily enjoy your films — not everyone will > — Yes, but even those who don’t usually refrain from wearing their hostility so nakedly, not to mention transparently.
> I will say that I do admire your skillful self-promotion. You deserve your > success. *phew* Now I can put the razor blade down.
In closing, I thought I’d include a spot of good news for you that I read online this morning…
“Voters in Oregon ordered an increase in the minimum wage from $6.50 to $6.90.”
Chin up. This is your year.
Smithy
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/363/nation/In_with_the_new_laws_2003_brinP.shtml
— Original Message — From: “Greg Dorr” <dorrk.com> To: <juvenileinjoke@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 12:56 PM Subject: Re: My apologies
Well, I guess I should be honored that my criticism (I’m sorry, my “write-offs”) are so important to you. After all, you’ve spent considerable time mulling over my words and investigating my web site to conjure a response. You may not be thin-skinned, but I am, after all, “just a guy who watches DVDs.”
I’m sure you’ve had plenty of bad reviews in your time. Mine, contrary to your snarky dismissals, seem to provoke a reaction from you. That’s about the best compliment you can pay a critic. So thanks.
While I’m not interested in getting into a long debate here about the questionable merits of pop culture analysis, I do find it slightly intriguing that Smithy K. Rybaby of all people — a guy who made his name out of nothing with a shoestring indie — is now trying to assert some kind of elitist criteria for who is qualified to express themselves and in what way.
You can continue to envision me as a hostile little man fuming my hours away over some bitter regrets and spitefully spending my rancor on any who have achieved success, but I would like to raise the possibility — the merest of chances, if you can dare imagine it — that some one who doesn’t like your films, is assigned to review them, and does so in a provocative way (you’ve proved that, at least), is just a happily married guy with a good job (at $35/hour) and who likes to spend his holidays with his family and friends and rarely, yes, rarely, ever even thinks of Smithy K. Rybaby, except when he has to.
— Original Message — From: <juvenileinjoke@hotmail.com> To: <dorrk.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 6:01 PM Subject: Re: My apologies
In a message dated 1/1/03 12:57:43 PM, dorrk.com writes:
> Well, I guess I should be honored that my criticism (I’m sorry, my > “write-offs”) are so important to you. That’s my point: their not criticisms. If they were, I’d be able to accept them as such. But you’ve written two character assassinations. And transparent ones at that.
> After all, you’ve spent considerable time mulling over my words and > investigating my web site to conjure a response. If something’s worth doing, it’s worth doing right, I say. If I’m going to reach out and touch someone, I like to familiarize myself with who they are, and offer them the benefit of the doubt. But a look at your blog confirmed my suspicions: you’re yet another wannabe who has armored himself in his desperate battle against obscurity by hiding in the mantle of “critic.” And you don’t even do that correctly.
> you may not be thin-skinned, but I am, after all, “just a guy who watches > DVDs.” …who chose me and my career to shit all over, rather than simply criticize. Perhaps others take that lying down, but I like to hold folks accountable for what they write about me. You feel free enough to review me, why can’t I do the same for you?
> I’m sure you’ve had plenty of bad reviews in your time. While never as many bad as good, yes – I’ve gotten slammed. Or rather, the movies I’ve made have gotten slammed. But you reviewed me, not the flick(s). > Mine, contrary to your snarky dismissals, seem to provoke a reaction from > you. If I had a nickel for every critic (legitimate or two bit) that I’ve dashed off emails to in an effort to remind them that there’s a person on the other end of their bile, I’d have at least four bucks by now.
> That’s about the best compliment you can pay a critic. So thanks. Hey, man – whatever helps you sleep at night. Just remember that you’re now in the same club as Michael Medved.
> While I’m not interested in getting into a long debate here about the > questionable merits of pop culture analysis, I do find it slightly > intriguing that Smithy K. Rybaby of all people — a guy who made his name out of > nothing with a shoestring indie — is now trying to assert some kind of > elitist criteria for who is qualified to express themselves and in what > way. What’s so elitist about holding people accountable for what they say? I’d say it’s the elitist that wants to say his/her peace and then not be called on the carpet for it.
I don’t know what part of the world you grew up in, but where I grew up, someone slanders you (and that’s what you did – you slandered me, not my work), you at least let them know you’re aware that they’ve slandered you. What you describe as self-expression, I describe as sniping. And while everyone’s entitled to their opinion, I have a problem with people feeling that internet access gives them a free pass to deride a total stranger’s character, just because they don’t like the movies they make. If you consider yourself a professional critic (and based on the fact that you include reviews for an internet site on your resume’, it’s apparent you do), I’d caution you against sniping instead of offering criticism, as the former is entirely unprofessional. Review the work, not the life or character of the person who made it. I’d say that, one day, you’ll know what I’m talking about, but based on my perusal of your stuff, I guess you’ll have to trust me on this.
> You can continue to envision me as a hostile little man fuming my hours away > over some bitter regrets and spitefully spending my rancor on any who have > achieved success, I hadn’t up until this point, but now that you’ve presented me with the notion…
> but I would like to raise the possibility — the merest of chances, if you > can dare imagine it — that some one who doesn’t like your films, is > assigned to review them, and does so in a provocative way (you’ve proved > that, at least), If by “provocative” you mean dragging my name through the mud, then I’d say we’re working from different dictionaries.
> is just a happily married guy with a good job (at $35/hour) and who likes > to spend his holidays with his family and friends and rarely, yes, rarely, > ever even thinks of Smithy K. Rybaby, except when he has > to. Says the guy who’s now written me twice.
Smithy
— Original Message — From: “Greg Dorr” <dorrk.com> To: <juvenileinjoke@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 11:03 PM Subject: Re: My apologies
Smithy,
We can agree, I am sure, that we share equal rights to express our views about each other’s work. Sadly for you, there is no market for a critique of song lyrics I wrote 10 years ago. For my part, my reviews at DVD Journal are read by roughly 2000 readers every week. As a public artist, I’m sure that minor irritants like me are far outweighed by the benefits of your success. I think you can handle it.
Just in case you had a fair point in there somewhere, I went back and read my reviews of Stoners and Crass, which I had pretty much forgotten about.
Yes, both reviews severely and unforgivingly pan what I consider totally irredeemable movies; to imply anything more gentle would be dishonest. But to suggest that either review comes close to slander or character assassination is as asinine as Dipshits.
Although the opinions are obviously not appreciative of your work, they are limited to your work. It would be slander if I stated, “Stoners is so bad, Smithy K. Rybaby must have molested small boys.” Or character assassination if I had written, “As producer of Crass, Smithy K. Rybaby is an animal-fucking offspring of Hitler who wears on a chain around his neck a locket containing a sprig of his grandfather’s pubic hair.”
The worst I have written about you, personally, is, “Rybaby’s characters talk for the sake of hearing their own cleverness, and proudly throw around big words with little comprehension or motivation. One gets the feeling that Rybaby is much the equally insufferable – his subsequent movies feature the same flaws with signs of maturation.”
And that was a typo. I meant, “with _no_ signs of maturation.”
To prove my point, you extrapolate from these two reviews (only two out of hundreds I have written) that anyone who disses your films is ’shitting on your career’ and likely is insincerely expressing sublimated frustration at his own impotence. That’s a little bit of grandstanding, don’t you think? After all, I’m “just a guy who watches DVDs.” But I’m also, incomprehensibly, on a plane with Michael Medved? I think I can handle that without losing sleep at night. In fact, your $4 worth of theoretical nickels gained smacking down punks like me suggest that in your correspondence with 80 critics who irk you I am in fairly strong company.
See the great thing about the internet — and I was a published (if inconsequential) author before I even got online 8 years ago — is that it allows all of us to replicate Smithy K. Rybaby’s great journey: to gather our meager resources and express ourselves to a wide audience and see what they think of us and our work, albeit on a smaller scale. Whether or not you think some of us do it “correctly” — and you can think whatever you want — is largely irrelevant. There we are.
But you’re right. We do need to be held accountable for our modes of expression.
I, Greg Dorr, am accountable for not liking your movies AND for writing bad song lyrics and parodies of Rod McKuen poetry AND for responding to emails written by public personalities currently hawking self-aggrandizing DVDs when they call me names.
I’d much rather claim that than be accountable for making “Playing With Myself.” But that’s just my preference. I’m sure you differ. Nothing personal.
— Original Message — From: <juvenileinjoke@hotmail.com> To: <dorrk.com> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 11:19 AM Subject: Re: My apologies
In a message dated 1/1/03 11:04:49 PM, dorrk.com writes:
>> We can agree, I am sure, that we share equal rights to express our views >> about each other’s work. Sadly for you, there is no market for a critique of >> song lyrics I wrote 10 years ago.
Yet feel proud enough of to post on a regularly updated website. That’s so sad.
>> For my part, my reviews at DVD Journal are read by roughly 2000 readers every week.
Two thousand? Good Lord, why am I giving a shit then. Carry on in your ignominy, sir.
>> As a public artist, I’m sure that minor irritants like me are far outweighed by the benefits of your success. I think you can >> handle it.
If you’ve got the time and inclination to slam me, I figure I owe you at least as much thought. Besides, wading through your adorably inept attempts at self-expression reminded me of what it was like to be thirteen, self-absorbed, and in love with my own prose.
>> Just in case you had a fair point in there somewhere, I went back and read >> my reviews of Stoners and Crass, which I had pretty much forgotten about. >> Yes, both reviews severely and unforgivingly pan what I consider totally >> irredeemable movies; to imply anything more gentle would be dishonest.
Dishonest is the guy who blames his lack of employment on layoffs.
>> But to suggest that either review comes close to slander or character >> assassination is as asinine as Dipshits.
See – this is why you’ll never find success in writing anything more than DVD reviews (although 2000 readers isn’t exactly what I’d call the hallmark of success either, but still): rather than be really original, you go for the standard slam of “Dipshits.” If you’re striving for total lack of originality in every bit of writing you do – even your emails – it’s now fair to say you’re par for the course.
>> Although the opinions are obviously not appreciative of your work, they are >> limited to your work. It would be slander if I stated, “Stoners is so bad, >> Smithy K. Rybaby must have molested small boys.” Or character assassination if I >> had written, “As producer of Crass, Smithy K. Rybaby is an animal-fucking >> offspring of Hitler who wears on a chain around his neck a locket containing >> a sprig of his grandfather’s pubic hair.”
Another ho-hum example of the “I’m-clever-aren’t I?!-Aren’t-I?!-Please?!-Anyone?!” prose your reviews and your website are lousy with. I sympathize with your spouse, who must have to gracefully smile through test readings of your utter lack of wit while screaming on the inside “Give it up, Greg! Just get a job-job already, and we’ll both be happier!”
>> The worst I have written about you, personally, is, “Rybaby’s characters talk >> for the sake of hearing their own cleverness, and proudly throw around big >> words with little comprehension or motivation. One gets the feeling that >> Rybaby is much the equally insufferable – his subsequent movies feature the >> same flaws with signs of maturation.” >> And that was a typo. I meant, “with _no_ signs of maturation.”
I stand corrected: a glimmer of wit.
However, if that was, indeed, a fact-based correction and not an attempt at sarcasm, I’d urge you toward a vasectomy, so as not to pass on genes that lack in content anything remotely resembling talent with a turn of phrase.
>> To prove my point, you extrapolate from these two reviews (only two out of >> hundreds I have written) that anyone who disses your films is ’shitting on >> your career’ and likely is insincerely expressing sublimated frustration at >> his own impotence.
Not anyone – just you, Sparky.
>> That’s a little bit of grandstanding, don’t you think?
Not when it’s 100% accurate.
>> After all, I’m “just a guy who watches DVDs.” But I’m also, incomprehensibly, on a plane with Michael Medved? I think I can >> handle that without losing sleep at night.
No, I’m sure you’re largely kept awake by the paralyzing fear that your DVD reviews are about as heard or acknowledged as you’ll ever be.
>> In fact, your $4 worth of theoretical nickels gained smacking down punks like me suggest that in your correspondence with 80 >> critics who irk you I am in fairly strong company.
If you consider the company of half-wits and dullards strong, then you’ve got bigger issues than not liking my flicks. Like finds like, I guess.
>> See the great thing about the internet — and I was a published (if >> inconsequential) author before I even got online 8 years ago —
Ewwww – that was a desperate defense if I ever read one. And you tried to take the edge off it by being a tad self-effacing, but still it reeked of defensiveness.
>> is that it allows all of us to replicate Smithy K. Rybaby’s great journey: to gather our >> meager resources and express ourselves to a wide audience and see what they >> think of us and our work, albeit on a smaller scale. Whether or not you >> think some of us do it “correctly” — and you can think whatever you want — >> is largely irrelevant. There we are.
I’m afraid that even the “we” you include yourself in wouldn’t have you, sir. Failure is often viewed as a contagion, and nobody wants to be around a multiple loser.
>> But you’re right. We do need to be held accountable for our modes of >> expression. >> I, Greg Dorr, am accountable for not liking your movies AND for writing bad >> song lyrics
You forgot the travelogues, the “plays,” etc. – they’re just as bad.
>> and parodies of Rod McKuen poetry AND for responding to emails >> written by public personalities currently hawking self-aggrandizing DVDs >> when they call me names.
Sure – blame your multiple emails on the name-calling. This being your third missive, it’s becoming apparent you want our correspondence to keep going, as it seems I’ve given you the most acknowledgment you’ve ever had.
>> I’d much rather claim that than be accountable for making “Playing With Myself.”
You’re in the minority there, man. But then, aren’t you always?
>> But that’s just my preference. I’m sure you differ. Nothing personal.
No – you only make it personal in your “reviews.”
Smithy
— Original Message — From: “Greg Dorr” <dorrk.com> To: <juvenileinjoke@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 12:20 PM Subject: Re: My apologies
Smithy,
First, I’d like to point out the obvious: you and I both seem the type to insist on the last word. So any snide attempts at belittlement based on continuing participation in this exchange cuts both ways. It doesn’t serve your argument, which, if memory serves, was that I “slandered” you with “character assassination.” Or was it that I am simply jealous of your success?
If the latter were the case, then why would I praise any film that met with any success? What would distinguish the films of Smithy K. Rybaby from all the others? Is it remotely possible that I can judge these specific films on their own merits without the interference of the blinding emotional baggage you imagine me to have? Certainly, when a film gains a certain amount of pop cultural significance — and, yes, you are something of a pop culture phenom owing from your noteworthy place in the rise of the 1990s independent film — I approach the film in that context. Such was the case with my analysis of Stoners‘ popularity. My suggestion that, like your characters, you might also be guilty of talking for the sake of hearing your own cleverness with little comprehension or motivation, is borne out by the non-sequiter approach of your disagreements. When I ask for evidence of actual slander you question whether I am lying about being laid-off by my previous employer. What one has to do with the other is a little mystery that only you can solve, for the fantasy that I am being dishonest is just that.
If we find each other’s work tiresome, flat, and infantile, that is fine with me. I can find solace in the fact that mine, then, reaches a much smaller audience.
Again, if you can cite any actual slander or character assassination — which is what you first claimed separated my reviews from the others and merited a response — please do. Was it when I referred to you as “lucky?” Come on. And accusations of this type coming from someone who is quoted by [journalist name omitted] in the NY Post as having called ABC executives “penned up anal rapists” strikes me as a little rich.
Otherwise, it seems as if you are attempting with your bluster to intimidate a critic to recant his honest assessment of your films, or, even worse, simply lashing out to belittle someone to whom you already consider yourself superior. And to invent demeaning interior monologues for my wife? Now, who’s the condescending asshole?
Let me quote yourself back at you, from your own infamous [name of other movie omitted] episode (during which, you, yourself, referred to [another, vastly more talented director, name omitted] as “deluded,” you character assassin!): “You remind me of the angry sanctimonious fucks we had to deal with a few months back who thought I was a threat to their faith. Hey – if you’re secure that ‘<INSERT ANY Smithy K. Rybaby FILM TITLE HERE>’ is such a brilliant film, then what the fuck does it matter what I think?”