MOVIES: Disturbing Exchange Between Film Director & Journalists

India West writer Lisa Tsering brings to our attention what she calls a disturbing series of e-mails from Willard Carroll, director of the upcoming film "Marigold."  In the e-mails, Carroll speaks of “morally bankrupt journalists” and appears to threaten Tsering and another SAJAer, Aseem Chhabra, with a ban from most Hollywood movie screenings.

It all started when Chhabra wrote a Mumbai Mirror article about Bollywood stars Aishwarya Rai and Salman Khan, finding it difficult to shed their melodrama and awkward English dialog while performing in western films. 

To support his point, Chhabra describes Khan’s performance in "Marigold," a movie about an American actress trying to make it in Bollywood.

Khan is very dull and he almost sleepwalks through the film. He suffers from the same flaw as Rai - the inability to match English dialogues with Bollywood acting. 

In the reader comments that followed, Carroll (that's him on the left) added one terse posting: He pasted the first line of an email he had received from Chhabra that began, “I saw Marigold on Monday and enjoyed it,” and called this evidence of the reporter’s lack of professionalism.

But that was just the beginning. 

Carroll then sent Chhabra an e-mail accusing the reporter of violating press rules by printing his opinion before the review date.  “We'll make certain that you're on the no-screening list for as many studios as possible,” the director wrote in the email.

Chhabra explained to SAJAforum that he didn’t do anything wrong because his article is not a movie review, but simply a commentary on the ability of certain Bollywood stars to cross over.  He wonders whether Carroll would have made the accusation if the opinion in his article had been a favorable one.

The exchange got a dose of masala after Tsering wrote a short comment on the Mumbai Mirror site defending Chhabra’s knowledge of films.  Carroll shot her an email with what sounded like a veiled threat.

[Chhabra is] now banned from almost all US studio screenings. Perhaps you'd like to join him? There's plenty of room but, trust me, it's a lonely place.

Carroll then delivered a dramatic judgment on Chhabra’s and Tsering’s journalistic approaches, writing that "these heinous, cowardly actions ultimately do nothing more than reveal the window to a minority of sad, pathetic, frustrated, and morally bankrupt journalists' souls."

Neither journalist knows whether Carroll’s claims have any teeth.  Chhabra and Tsering both report that the press invites are still coming through.

We invite Carroll to share his thoughts in the comments section below. Everyone else is invited to comment, too.

Earlier on SAJAforum:

• Aseem Chhabra's video Bollywood Briefing series (nine videos)
  

Comments

[Preston]

Somebody needs to send all those materials to gawker.

[Tom Wilhite]

I am the producer of "Marigold." Each of us involved with the film, including Willard Carroll, expect a journalist to speak his mind freely. However, it is a long professional tradition in the US film industry - certainly since I started in this business 35 years ago - that reviews are to be held until the official review date. Mr. Chhabra, as a professional journalist based in the US, must certainly know this and should have abided by the guidelines used here. Regardless what he says, he did in fact "review" the movie by expressing his subjective opinions about it. Again, he can say whatever he likes - but he should have waited until Aug. 17 to do so.

Secondly, from having spent many months in India making "Marigold," I think reporters who cover the film industry there are unusually, and in some cases, unreasonably rough on Indian actors and filmmaking talent - who are world-class.

[Savithri Machiraju]

I really don't understand the purpose of this article. It reads more like gossip than a news item to me. In the first place, Ms. Tsering has made public private emails, almost certainly without the permission of the author. Is this considered ethical journalism? Secondly, the article itself states:

"Neither journalist knows whether Carroll’s claims have any teeth. Chhabra and Tsering both report that the press invites are still coming through."

So if both of the reporters mentioned have not suffered any ill effects so far, what exactly is the hullaballoo about? So a director vents his frustration in a personal email. Is that "news"?

I have read both Mr. Chchabra's article in the Mumbai Mirror and Lisa Tsering report in India West of a press conference she attended with Ali Larter, the star of Marigold. In both cases, I could clearly discern a bias -- in Mr. Chchabra's case, a bias against any Bollywood star being able to succeed in Hollywood, as compared with actors like Om Puri and Irrfan Khan. If the piece were a comparison of stars vs. actors, it might have been interesting, although it would still be an opinion piece, and not a news story. But, as in so many cases with Bollywood articles, it passes off personal opinion as fact.

Similarly in Ms. Tsering's reportage of the Marigold press conference, almost every line (if accurately reported) shows Ms. Tsering's desire to paint Marigold as a losing proposition from the start, to try to get a negative quote from Ali Larter about Salman Khan, and so on. Again, all standard practice among the Bollywood press, but not exactly what is considered standard journalism or ethics in the U.S.

So again, I wonder, what is the purpose of this article, except to fan the flames of a dying controversy?

[Cdrake]

Bias or no, I think when someone threatens someone else of dark consequences, it still is news. While I am on the fence about whether Mr Chabbra or MS Tsering were objective in their reporting on marigold, I certainly think, if Mr Carrol did say what he did to them, in writing, then he erred in judgement (at the very least) whatever his motivations.

[Savithri Machiraju]

It is that word "threat" that I am having trouble with. In a dictionary sense that may be true, but in the Bollywood sense, where "threats" have been made agains people's lives, I find it incongrous and absurd. When I was first alerted to this incident, with a link headlined "Journalist threatened by director", I was considerably alarmed, but when I came here to get the details, I find that it is nothing more than a desire to bar the journalists from future screenings, which hasn't even materialized. I find that to be disingenous at best, and deliberate misrepresentation at worst.

[Savithri Machiraju]

Let me add, that I agree that the comments reported here and attributed to Mr. Carroll were ill-advised, but that doesn't alter the fact that they should not have been made public to begin with. Sorry, this whole episode resembles gossip mongering more than news reporting in my view.

[David Chute]

Bad judgment, possibly, on Carroll's part. He's old enough to know that the press always assumes that it is their divine right to be as provocative as they please, and anyone who responds in a natural, human way is out of control.

The snideness of the original article is gratuitous, Carroll's reponse understandable. All he did was spend two years trying to make a movie people would enjoy. The nerve!

[cdrake]

Noone doubts that a movie takes much to make and even more to release...or that it's a natural reaction for someone to be angry or upset when they find articles which they believe, has a slant against their film.

To address Savitri's point, it is moral relativism at best and rediculousness at worst to say that everything is a-ok because the lives of the journalists werent threatened. We do not live in such a society here, nor SHOULD we. Threatening to ban or restrict a journalist's ability to work in an industry is In my opinion, equally a threat. people can disagree and minimize it all the want , of course.

I think writing in an email threat that someone cannot work in an industry is pretty foolish on Mr Carrol's part. I loved Marigold and want there to be many more such films though.

Maybe Mr Carrol Should have let an agent handle his press, but What do I know? It is also very good that filmmakers are taking their work so personally. that is a lost quality in moviedom these day

[Shripriya]

Carroll should not have threatened to block the journalists, but Chhabra's article was most certainly a review. He had *several* statements (I counted at least three) about the movie in general that did not at all pertain to the actor's ability to act in English.

To quote just one: "I attended a screening of Marigold some weeks back and I think the words ‘empty’ and ‘soulless’ seem apt for Carrol’s work. The film’s script is so weak that it makes David Dhawan’s Partner look like a masterpiece."

What is that if it is not a review??

Then he adds: "But more important, Khan is very dull and he almost sleepwalks through the film. He suffers from the same flaw as Rai - the inability to match English dialogues with Bollywood acting."

Adding the "But more important..." does not make it any less of a review of the movie. Was it a full review? No. But were there lots of elements which reviewed the movie? Yes.

There are two issues, it seems:
1. Did Chhabra violate the agreement to not publish his review before August 17th? Er... is there any question after the above quote? He should apologize.
2. Should Carroll have used threats? Absolutely not. He should have used the facts, which support him, to state his case.

I am quite sure that Salman Khan can't act in English and will readily trust Chhabra's review. But the fact that he published a review before the August 17th date is not in question.

[Preston]

Who knew that Aseem Chhabra is the most powerful kingmaking reviewer of Indian film? My gosh, three little lines buried in a larger commentary about crossover actors and "Marigold" is doomed to flop, the director ruined, the industry wrecked.

There will be other reviews. Some will be positive; others will be negative. And the movie will be seen or not seen on its own merits, not because of three lines in the "Mumbai Mirror."

[Lisa Tsering]

I need to add that in his email to me, Willard Carroll indicated that he was forwarding the mail to as many people as possible -- and for that reason I felt comfortable bringing it to a public forum.
I quote from his email: "PS. This email has also been forwarded to the appropriate individuals/outlets. It also makes for a great story which I will not hesitate to tell and retell for a long, long time. Good luck!"

[Lisa Tsering]

One more thing, in response to Savithri's post -- my article about Ali Larter went to press before I got any emails from Willard Carroll. Indeed, as I told him in an email, over the past few years that the film was under production, the paper I write for has given more positive coverage to Marigold than any other publication either in America OR India.
Although I acknowledge that I did ask some deliberately provocative questions to Ms. Larter about Salman Khan, I did not portray her or the film in a negative light in my Aug. 10 interview and that is entirely Savithri's subjective view.

[Sruthi Pinnamaneni/SAJAforum]

The purpose of this article is to bring up journalistic questions that arise from reading the email exchange between the director and reporters. Does the Mumbai Mirror article cover a larger Bollywood issue or is it, in fact, reviewing a specific movie? Can a single director actually get a reporter banned from most U.S. screenings? In reader comments so far, those are questions that are being discussed.

Regarding Savithri Machiraju's first comment: An email headlined "Journalist threatened by director" certainly does simplify and misrepresent the issue. That is why that is not the title of our article.

However, Carroll did use strong language when writing that he would "make certain" that Chhabra is added to studio no-screening lists. And in the email to Tsering, he does insinuate that she might share Chhabra's fate. With both direct statement and insinuation, Carroll is expressing the intention (or ability) to punish the journalists -- a text book definition of the word "threat."

Whether Carroll is justified in his accusations of unprofessional behavior is a valid question about journalistic practices -- and that is why this article is on SAJAforum.

[cdrake]

That is not the title of YOUR article, but this is what we can, in common sense, take away from it. it's quite certainly the conclusion one draws from a (an admittedly ADD)quick reading of it.

[Savithri Machiraju]

To Sruthi Pinnamaneni: I appreciate the fact that the article has a more representative headline. In fact, I find it even a little understated. "Unprofessional reaction by director" would have sat perfectly fine with me. If I take the emails quoted here to be accurate, then I must characterize them as unwarranted and unprofessional personal attacks on the journalists in question, and do no credit to their author.

To Lisa Tsering: Thanks for your clarification. I agree that if Willard Carroll's email was going to be widely circulated, that alters the matter somewhat. But I think that in that case, it would have been better if this article had started by noting that fact, and then gone on to paraphrase the emails, rather than quote them.

To everyone: If the purpose of the discussion here is to discuss journalistic ethics, I think it is a good idea to categorize into what class emails to a journalist fall. Are they to be treated as personal correspondence? In which case, they are to be treated as the recipient's property, who can decide what to do with them or whom to show them to (at least this is the old, old, principle of etiquette). Or are they simply another reference source that a journalist can use in a piece for publication, or to be treated as an interview? That is really the crux of the ethical issue here, it seems to me. Is everything that a journalist comes across grist to her/his mill? Is the journalist first and foremost, and always, a journalist, or is s/he also an individual, with a clearly delineated separation between the personal and professional spheres? Now, since these emails came in the course of a journalist performing professional duties, it can be argued that they do not represent personal correspondence. But then, I have never seen any newspaper or news program that slectively quotes from readers' or audience's letters as part of another news article. The letters are published in the "Letters" section, and if the original reporter wishes to respond, then the response is also published. On the other hand, if they are to be viewed as a conversation with the journalist, or an interview, do not the usual provisions by which a journalist asks whether a particular statement may be quoted, apply?

Perhaps looser rules apply here since this is a forum, but if this article is being reproduced in other places in the blogosphere, then it is no longer a discussion in a closed space, limited to members debating their professional obligations, but a free-for-all, where someone is being accused on the basis of selective evidence, without a chance to defend himself. (I realize that Mr. Carroll was invited to comment here, but I am referring to the other websites.) I think it is in that wider context that the ethical discussion must take place. The advent of the internet, and especially the proliferation of blogs in the last few years, is changing the rules of the game, at a pace perhaps faster than the players can keep up with.

[cdrake]

savithri and others:

it must be understood that the press(the movie reviewer press) and the movie industry(specially the indipendant/foreign film industry) share a symbiotic relationship based foremost on the love of good film. )isa or asseem or any journalist that write foremost because they like watching good film and only second from being in the industry, although both are established professionals in it.

it is therefore very unhelpful if such people are subject to threat and any body that speaksup for them has their motives questioned, as if we were fans of an opposing team.

could people please see that seeing a threat for what it is: a threat to ban people from further film journalist work..is not passing along a smear the dark side has put out. it is merely asking people take a time out and reflect cooly if this is how they want to be remembered by posterity...

My Being silent will hardly alter the basic facts any more than your writing long defenses in overreaction will.

[David Chute]

For what it's worth, as a journalist in the US, I would never inject positive or negative comments into a feature story about a movie published before its release---nor would any of the editors I work for allow it. Not least because this would be seen as stepping on the toes of the publication's designated film critic. The piece in question is absoutly the sort of thing that in the US would be saved to run as an additional "think piece" after the critic had been allowed to weigh in. But I also know (from reading Lisa's paper, in part) that these demarcations aren't as rigid in India.

[Ilana]

If the protocol is for critics/journalists to refrain from publishing a critique or personal opinion about a film before its release and a journalist breaks that unspoken rule, is it so surprising that the journalist would no longer be welcome at future screenings? Why would anyone trust that person not to do it again?

Going after Tsering for her snarky comment was uncalled for, but Carroll is perfectly justified in letting others in the industry know that Chhabra does not play by the rules. Chhabra made his own bed, now he should lie in it.

As for "all press is good press" – tell that to those lacrosse player at Duke. That’s just a cop out used by some journalists to justify shoddy work.

[cdrake]

I think the lesson to take away here is to OMG stop finger pointing already!!!

Both Asseem and Willard have been put under the lens enough for mature people to introspect what they would do different if they knew how to count to ten and breathe deep.

Making Indian movies work in the US for American Mainstream Audiences(hispanic , White Black...springield Audiences) is not easy as willard found out trying to distribute his film these last three years. Assem's just afraid of another failed crossover effort, I guess. I think both these views are valid, and people should grow big enough to accomodate the other point of view....without finger pointing or proxy warring. It's an industry that can grow.Big. We all need to understand this.

[Kirit Desai]

Looking at the turns of the event in Marigold Merry-Go-Round, one may find a journalist trying to break the rules with the use of a pen and a director rushing to use similar pen as a stick to break a journalistic back! May be Aseem was trying to meet the dead-line from Mumbai-Mirror!

Willard Carroll’s worry over Chhabra’s review as breaking the Hollywood protocol for a new film is probably a front only. He would not really care for Mirror effect on American fans, but he expects nastier turnoff from Indian side, especially in Mumbai – a Filmy Mecca of Bollywood fans. Marigold has high expectation in Indian Market as well.

Coming to reality, entertainment industry in Hollywood has thrived on unwritten rules of threats and ban of people (by using power/glamour) in the past and would keep the tradition going on. Oscar ceremony & awards is good sampler on this great western phenomenon. So Carroll’s chain-letter action could twist few arms on this matter but not for a long time.

One point I may add here: Some of the SAJA journalists, especially those who were born in India and settled here are truly Indophile; however, when it comes to measure Indian side, their criticism sees no bounds in focusing on all weaknesses and without looking from the window of positive aspects. I am not a Bollywood fan and I have not seen the film (Marigold) yet. But it is quite noticeable that many successful Bollywood actors/actresses trying for a launch pad in Hollywood would go through more vigorous critical examination under the cross-wires than their American counterparts trying to find meaningful roles in Bollywood films like Lagaan, Kisna etc. One must remember that it is a big cultural transition for both sides under the shadows of language barrier. If Arnold could become terminator without reading any script, Salman Khan should be given the same chance with a short & sassy romantic script! They both have something in common!

Cheers.

Kirit Desai
Philadelphia

[panditjugalkishoreshastri]

So what's the conclusion ladies and gents. this cross-cultural misunderstanding, the basis of modernday debate, must have a general upshot. If you haven't been able to decide it based on argument, let me do it for you with a monolgue. It will prevent argument and save time:

TOM WHITE: leave Aseem alone.

journalists are not great time keepers. He should be cleared of charges of early release of his review. All he knows is how to chroncle his own moods about a movie. He is not sitting in judgment on a masterpiece. What do you say, Tom White. Sugar will get you more than vinegar. C'mon man. Aseem might one day be on a Committee on Joint Collaboration between Bollywood marigold and Hollywood masala.

If I were you i would forgive and forget and move on.