The Jeffrey Wells Thread

[MichaelB]

Whereas people who've had first-hand experience of living under fascism tend not to. I wonder why that is?

[SpiderBaby]

I also find it funny he calls anyone that disagrees with him "fascists", yet he has became his own bully on his own website where only his opinion matters, not even one of the (hopeful) filmmaker in question.

Time for that quote "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". Ignore him.

[Ishmael]

The sickening thing about all this is that Wells wins, big time. Here's Wells, a small-time loser, getting all this attention and personally communicating with Roman Polanski. It doesn't matter that Wells is clearly playing the strutting ass. The more he does that, the more attention he's gonna get. And considering that he'll never really admit that he's objectively wrong about this, he's gonna be crowing for the rest of his life about his fabled debates with Polanski (with whom Wells no doubt sees himself as being an equal in terms of artistic judgment and integrity).

[Zot!]

And considering that he'll never really admit that he's objectively wrong about this, he's gonna be crowing for the rest of his life about his fabled debates with Polanski (with whom Wells no doubt sees himself as being an equal in terms of artistic judgment and integrity).

Perhaps they could compare pecadillos next?

[mfunk9786]

I've been led to believe by a source who has examined the film closely that the viewer may -- I say 'may' -- not be able to see the steak they're eating. Again -- I don't know that the steak is missing, but I've heard that it may be.

Hey, at least the guy has perspective and has his priorities straight. I mean, this is the ultimate sin against humanity! Won't someone please think of the steak?!

His latest hilarious post is to bash the gorgeous new teaser poster for The Master

[hearthesilence]

The sickening thing about all this is that Wells wins, big time. Here's Wells, a small-time loser, getting all this attention and personally communicating with Roman Polanski. It doesn't matter that Wells is clearly playing the strutting ass. The more he does that, the more attention he's gonna get. And considering that he'll never really admit that he's objectively wrong about this, he's gonna be crowing for the rest of his life about his fabled debates with Polanski (with whom Wells no doubt sees himself as being an equal in terms of artistic judgment and integrity).

LOL, if he actually crows about that one post for the rest of his life (and I doubt anyone will consider the interaction a "debate"), that's not going to look like a feather in his cap, it's just going to look SAD.

[Ishmael]

LOL, if he actually crows about that one post for the rest of his life (and I doubt anyone will consider the interaction a "debate"), that's not going to look like a feather in his cap, it's just going to look SAD.

Yeah, most definitely. I'm talking about it from his perspective. In his mind, he gets validated. Maybe I'm jealous. If I acted like a strutting cock, would Polanski pay attention to me, too?

[hearthesilence]

Yeah, but deranged lunatics do that too. Take David Letterman - he was stalked by a seriously ill woman who eventually killed herself, then he was the target of a kidnapping plot, and then blackmailed by some douchebag producer at 48 Hours. Getting someone's attention doesn't mean anything unless they're doing something respectable.

[swo17]

I've been led to believe by a source who has examined the film closely that the viewer may -- I say 'may' -- not be able to see the steak they're eating. Again -- I don't know that the steak is missing, but I've heard that it may be.

Hey, at least the guy has perspective and has his priorities straight. I mean, this is the ultimate sin against humanity! Won't someone please think of the steak?!

Did you read his original argument about the steak? They should make children read this in school:

If Mia Farrow and John Cassevettes are eating a steak dinner with Ruth Gordon and Sydney Blackmer in the latter's apartment, you want to be able to see the steak, and if you can't see the steak then you need to write a letter to Bob Furmanek and tell him to go eff himself and change the aspect ratio to whatever you need it to be in order to see the meat on the plate. Because Rosemary's Baby dp William Fraker was, I believe, the kind of guy who liked to show the audience what the characters are eating, and I'm the kind of guy who likes to see that also.

If the Criterion Bluray shows the steak, fine -- let's put this issue to bed. But if it doesn't show the steak, let's at least acknowledge that it doesn't do this and that the steak is lost and gone and that Criterion and Polanski and Furmanek have had a hand in this, and that I, at least, was one person who stood up and said, "Keep the steak! Let's see the reddish-brown juice on the plate!"

Directly followed of course by a Google-imaged picture of a sumptuous, juicy steak!

[MichaelB]

Wells' bizarre steak argument reminded me of something Polanski proposed not long after completing Rosemary's Baby:

Polanski also agreed to write two brief inserts for Ken Tynan's erotic revue Oh! Calcutta!, which the director collectively called 'The Voyeur'. In the first, a girl would appear and strip, but her breasts and crotch remain concealed by the strategically positioned furniture, a gag used to good effect by Austin Powers thirty years later. Another girl then enters, also strips and makes similarly veiled love to her friend. In the second sketch, Polanski's script opened with a man and a woman sitting opposite one another in a train compartment. Each character in turn would expose themselves, an act suggested solely by their partner's facial expression, before they dive below the window frame, and thus decorously out of shot, apparently screwing. Tynan thought the two pieces classic 'cock-teasing' Polanski films, but in the end, for budgetary reasons, never used them.

(Source: Polanski by Christopher Sandford)

In other words, I propose that Polanski is deliberately denying Wells the sight of "the reddish-brown juice on the plate", and that Wells' comical desperation is precisely the reaction that he intended.

[mfunk9786]

Wait'll someone tips Wells off to restaurants and grocery stores! He may explode.

[Gregory]

I like his recent post in which he sought to understand why a cat in a YouTube video was acting in a manner different from any cat he had personally owned, namely sticking its tongue out at around the eight-second mark.
But I couldn't see the cat sticking out its tongue at the bottom of the frame because someone "cleavered" the video to widescreen when it was obviously composed for about 1.66:1. I am the kind of guy who likes to see the part of the cat at the bottom of the frame. If no one else will stand up and say that, then I will at least be one who had the courage to do so.

[rspaight]

I can imagine "I want to see the meat on the plate!" being a rallying cry for anti-1.85 activists. Assuming there are enough to rally, of course.

[tarpilot]

I can't imagine him not obsessively checking his Google alerts every hour and seeing this thread; has he ever posted here?

[Brian C]

I can't imagine him not obsessively checking his Google alerts every hour and seeing this thread; has he ever posted here?

Not to my knowledge, but he's referenced comments here from time to time on his site, including one especially comical time involving me IIRC. I'll try to find it.

[Brian C]

Hmm, yes, took me a few minutes to remember the details, and it's not quite as comical as I thought, but here we are. Naturally it involves another case of Wells's irrational contempt for Criterion.

[mfunk9786]

I wonder if 'felipe' is Wells himself.

[Mr Sausage]

Wells' bizarre steak argument reminded me of something Polanski proposed not long after completing Rosemary's Baby:

Polanski also agreed to write two brief inserts for Ken Tynan's erotic revue Oh! Calcutta!, which the director collectively called 'The Voyeur'. In the first, a girl would appear and strip, but her breasts and crotch remain concealed by the strategically positioned furniture, a gag used to good effect by Austin Powers thirty years later. Another girl then enters, also strips and makes similarly veiled love to her friend. In the second sketch, Polanski's script opened with a man and a woman sitting opposite one another in a train compartment. Each character in turn would expose themselves, an act suggested solely by their partner's facial expression, before they dive below the window frame, and thus decorously out of shot, apparently screwing. Tynan thought the two pieces classic 'cock-teasing' Polanski films, but in the end, for budgetary reasons, never used them.

(Source: Polanski by Christopher Sandford)

In other words, I propose that Polanski is deliberately denying Wells the sight of "the reddish-brown juice on the plate", and that Wells' comical desperation is precisely the reaction that he intended.

I guess it's a good thing it was never filmed otherwise Wells would be hounding Tynan for the nudity filled outtakes.

[HistoryProf]

That is legitimately the stupidest thing quoted in this thread, and it comes from such a deep place of wrongness that it's astounding

I think this wins personally:

Wells to C.C. Baxter: I'm sorry, but I feel I know as much if not more than Preminger about the best way to project and appreciate Anatomy of a Murder. It's an Eisenhower-era movie, and it needs to breathe a bit. It needs a little air, a little head space. It really does. You have to be able to look up and feel the breeze on your face and savor the sky and the trees and the birds. I'll relent on the 1.33 a.r. for the sake of argument, but 1.66 would have been a much more agreeable way to go. You're not going to tell me that Preminger didn't know in his gut that many if not most audiences (i.e., those outside of the big cities) would be seeing Anatomy in a boxier shape. And don't talk to me about what's been written down about what he wanted. He wasn't delusional. He was a very tough hombre who lived and worked in the commercial realm, and he KNEW that TV airings were the main thing. On top of which all history is malleable. History is written by the winners.

I can't fathom how a sane person would say such a thing, so I can only conclude that Wells is clinically mentally ill...with such a profound combination of delusional paranoia and narcissism that it's hard to read anything on that damned site. It's so batshit crazy I can't believe it's real.

[HistoryProf]

I just wish he'd explain why he hates the 1.85 aspect ratio so much. It's like he gets piss-boiling angry every time he sees a film in that format, and it seems completely irrational. Like, does he get mad at directors who deliberately choose 1.85? Does he demand that the films be shown some other way? I can easily envision this guy storming the projection booth and busting it down Shining style just to fuck with the plates. It's really kind of disturbing. I'm surprised he hasn't written some lengthy hate letter to Wes Anderson for switching to 1.85 for Moonrise Kingdom.

he says it in the RB mea culpa (and he says it all the time):

Because I believe in height and head space and air that characters in a film can breathe in and out.

I don't exactly no what the fuck that even means, or why head room matters in the least. Never mind that perhaps a director might be aiming for the exact opposite effect in framing a scene more tightly. God forbid! But that's the be all and all of his "logic." that actors should have room to breathe on screen. he's fucking crazy.

[vsski]

I have lost count as to how many times this lunatic has incited the net with his rantings. Ultimately it doesn't matter one iota as to what he thinks the right ratio should be, all that matters is what the director who created the movie intended it to be (as much as that can be proven).
But while everyone thinks the guy is nuts, why is everyone paying him so much attention. I'm sure he gets a kick out of winding up people and exaggerates (or not) just to get a reaction.
If everyone would ignore him, no one would reply to his stupid column, I wonder how relevant any of this would be. But the mere fact that he constantly gets so many replies makes him so popular and achieves exactly what he wants.

Then maybe it's simply fun for some people to pick a fight at least virtually.

[CSM126]

[vsski]

touché

[mfunk9786]

Jeff Wells hits an all time low: Posts snuff video from this morning in NYC, complains that the victim's death was 'lame'

[hearthesilence]

Jesus, was he always like this?