Savant In Defense Of Peter Bart

I’m still alive. Give your sympathy to the entertainment industry.

Indeed, I’m still alive, but it doesn’t feel like it. When I was younger, I think I actually breeched every clique that existed, all while keeping within my own. I was never, say, a chronic stoner, but I’ve been there on days. All day. All night. It’s kinda fun, that realization that you never truly understand the nature and fabric of reality. I’m there right now, because my ‘sober’ state is a world of pain and dizziness as a result of the accident.

At night, I take this pain medication that’s basically a pharmaceutical opiate. One of the most dangerous prescription drugs on the planet; not because of addictiveness (which is low) but rather, the threshold between pain being dulled, the subsequent buzz, and overdose is incredibly thin.

A few days into my recovery, I received an email from uberscooper Smilin’ Jack Ruby, either wishing me well or wishing me death; I can never figure out which anymore. In this email was a link which lead me to a 14-page extravaganza about Variety’s Editor-In-Chief Peter Bart. The email closed with the line “This article should’ve run on fucking FilmJerk.com.”

And my God. Peter Bart is a pseudo-God in several different industries at once, not to mention journalism/news and the film/tv sect. The damn article has some balls, and it reads like an interview/cover bio gone horribly wrong, as if Bart’s ego blinded him to the fact that he was being put in his own grave. Having read it again, I wonder if the LA Magazine staff realized what they had here, or if this was always part of the plan. Not to disrespect LA Mag, but they’re not the biggest fish. It was a perfect blindside and an instant circulation builder.

In the resulting days since Monday, Bart has been suspended by both Variety and CNN, whom he contributed to on a weekly basis. Whyr Well, the article shows Bart making slightly prejudiced (all-inclusive, I suppose) statements, as well as a blatant disregard for the power and responsibility that he wields. Normally this wouldn’t be a problem so newsworthy (I mean, has Bart really done anything more or less childish than Harry Knowlesr) but unlike Knowles, Bart does not own Variety. Cahners does. Variety has a very large office and staff, a corporate headquarters worthy of maintaining a print newsmagazine/paper. As opposed to FilmJerk, which is run off two home computers in different states while the editors either maintain their day jobs, or of more recent events, recover from someone else’s stupidity on the road.

I’m really torn on this issue, because it’s a paradoxical one. As an editor, I don’t think I’d like to be indicted, so to speak, for the things that I do. It’s not the cleanest, most moral job on the planet. On the other hand, if we had done the Bart article, I wouldn’t have hesitated for a second to run it, and neither did the LA Magazine staff. Perhaps a paradox it will have to remain, and into a state of apathy I shall go.

I defend Peter Bart and his actions, and I would do such even if I had run that article. I even defend Harry Knowles and all of his bullshit, but that defense doesn’t mean I will blink for a minute before roasting him for something that was mishandled. I’m fairly certain most other editors cum webmasters would extend myself or the FilmJerk the same courtesy.

Don’t hate Peter Bart. And don’t hate me when and if I pull the same crap. All I gotta do now is get healthy again so I can write more of these rants.

Share