Name: Claudia Puig
Publication: USA Today
Age: 25*
Hometown: Walla Walla, Washington*
Years reviewing film: 20*
*April Fool’s!
It’s a bit difficult to get in touch with Claudia Puig these days. With two teenage daughters at home and anywhere between three to five or more movie reviews to write each week, the USA Today scribe balances an impossibly packed schedule. It’s almost unfathomable to think that the nation’s highest-circulated newspaper has only one film critic on staff, but the print veteran — who spent three years covering police and courtroom assignments and eight covering the entertainment industry at the LA Times — takes it in stride. “I’ve always said that if you’re good at covering a beat, it can be any beat,” Puig says.
But what sets Puig (pronounced “pweeg”) apart isn’t just her position as the most visible film critic at USA Today, or the fact that she is one of only six female members of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. She also belongs to a breed of critic that some consider rare — that which is equal parts cineaste and populist in nature. While plenty of other critics might count the Gregory Peck classic To Kill a Mockingbird and Paul Thomas Anderson‘s Magnolia among their favorites (“I use Magnolia as my litmus test,” says Puig. “If people don’t like that movie, I don’t want to have anything to do with them!”), how many reputable film writers will admit to loving Zoolander with nearly as much zest?
RT talked to Claudia Puig about her transition from journalist to critic, the unique voice and position of USA Today as a source of film reviews, the tenuous future of print criticism, and why it’s so hard to pick just one favorite film and director (she’s got four).
What is your favorite film?
Claudia Puig: This is always tough to answer and I add a lot of new favorites every year, but if I have to name one movie that has consistently moved me every time I see it, it’s probably To Kill a Mockingbird. But right after To Kill a Mockingbird is Magnolia. That’s the weirdest duo. In fact, I use Magnolia as my litmus test; if people don’t like that movie, I don’t want to have anything to do with them. It’s pretty horrible of me, actually. Because it divides people; people either hate or love that movie. And if people hated it or just thought it was pretentious — sorry, you’re not on my list! But if you love that movie we have an instant connection.
Who is your favorite director?
CP: It’s a four-way tie: Ang Lee and Alfonso Cuaron and Clint Eastwood and Paul Thomas Anderson.
What’s the worst movie you’ve ever seen, and why?
CP: That’s tough. There’s a long list of terrible movies every year. The answer for this depends on when you ask me. But I tend to hate facile, slapstick, maudlin holiday movies like Christmas with the Kranks.
Why did you become a critic?
CP: I’ve loved movies since I was a little kid. I had a mom that spoke about her favorite films a lot and her enthusiasm was contagious. She would sit me down and have me watch certain ones saying, “You’ve got to see this, it’s an amazing performance!” And I had a dad who would take me to Fellini movies, and Bunuel movies, and Truffaut movies — so both of my parents were major film aficionados. I grew up loving movies.
Was there a defining movie moment for you growing up?
CP: You know, I keep coming back to To Kill a Mockingbird. I remember being about ten and my mother telling me, “You have to watch this.” I remember being absolutely mesmerized by it, particularly Gregory Peck’s performance. Then I saw it as an adult and the feeling remained. Years later, when my daughters were about ten I did the same thing with them, saying “Ok, sit down, you have to watch this movie!” They loved it too. Somehow that film played a key role in my feeling about movies.
When you were a kid, what did you want to be when you grew up?
CP: I wanted to be a lot of things, over the years. A teacher, an interior decorator, a veterinarian, even a nun (for about 10 minutes). But probably most of the time I wanted to be a writer.
USA Today has a very unique voice among print media. How would you describe it?
CP: It’s very much for the masses. I don’t mean to imply the lowest common denominator. It’s for the masses who seek information in a more concise package. The way I like to describe it is that the paper is populist in its orientation. It’s not the New York Times; it’s not elitist. It’s not even the LA Times, which is more of a writer’s paper and a bit more focused towards the industry. But we cover much of the same stories, and then some. Our mandate is to write very efficiently and concisely. USA Today has a direct voice, and most of the stories are pithy and to the point, so you have to learn to work within that.
If you had free reign, would your writing be much different?
CP: Yes, it would be different. It would definitely be a lot longer. But [USA Today] really does what it does well, and it serves a purpose and it does that in a really effective way. There’s some really good writing. It’s the number one paper in this country and it’s also read a lot overseas. Most people are busy, and most people get their news from various different sources, and most people don’t have the time — as much as I love reading the New Yorker — they don’t really have the time to delve that deeply into things.
What other film critics/bloggers/entertainment journalists do you read regularly?
CP: I have a lot of colleagues whose work I really admire: Joe Morgenstern at the Wall Street Journal, A.O. Scott at the New York Times, both Anthony Lane and David Denby at the New Yorker, Michael Phillips in Chicago, Peter Rainer at the Christian Science Monitor and many others.
What does a film need to achieve to earn a perfect rating from Claudia Puig?
CP: No matter the genre, it must be superbly executed, exceptionally written and consistently brilliantly acted.
When you try to come up with “favorites,” it’s such a tough call, because there are great movies (often foreign or independent films) and then there are wonderful movies you can watch over and over again, that are personal favorites because they make you laugh or cry so easily — for instance, I can watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail over and over again. I can watch Zoolander over and over again! They’re such crazy funny movies. For amazing movies that make you cry there’s The Sweet Hereafter, The Ice Storm, a French film called Ponette. And then there are other movies are simply amazing, the movies that make you sit up a little straighter in the theater and feel this… tingle of excitement. The ones that make you say: “Whoa! This is something different.” I remember feeling that when I saw Three Kings, Magnolia, Spirited Away, You Can Count on Me, Out of Sight, The Celebration, The Lives of Others, After the Wedding, and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
What effect does the ongoing consolidation of the print medium have on film critics in general?
CP: Film criticism is at a critical (ok, pun intended) juncture, for several reasons. Print journalism is undergoing a massive change, with the emphasis at most papers on the internet versions of our newspapers. Film criticism has been substantially democratized with the inclusion of so many bloggers and internet sites that feature critics. I think it’s at an interesting point, but it also means that no one critic (or two or 10) has much sway. It’s all about critical mass.
While the print media continue to be consolidated, there are probably fewer newspaper critics out there, but internet critics have rushed in to fill the gap. It’s actually quite fascinating to speculate on where film criticism will be in 5, or 10 years. In general, I think older audiences rely more heavily on the recommendations of individual critics (usually those in their local papers) and younger audiences don’t pay as much attention to critics overall, since they’re not in the habit of reading newspapers as much as older people. If they do pay attention to critical assessments, they go to sites like Rotten Tomatoes to get an overview of what critics think, rather than relying on individual “favorite” critics.
So then, what is your role as a film critic?
CP: One of the things I feel is my mandate is to address a very basic thing: is this worth spending an increasing amount of money on — whatever ticket prices are going for, plus parking, popcorn, babysitters, and whatever else goes into it? I feel like I have a service to do, and that is [to say] do not waste your money, catch this on DVD or don’t catch it at all! And also for parents, is this something that is appropriate for your kids, in addition to the value of the film itself.
How’s the atmosphere at USA Today in light of what’s happened recently at Newsweek (David Ansen being bought out), the Village Voice (where Nathan Lee was laid off), and Newsday (which is losing critics Gene Seymour and Jan Stuart)?
CP: This is, unfortunately I think, indicative of the future. We had our very first buyout, and our paper’s been around for 25 years, and has been pretty immune…when I was at the LA Times there were all kinds of buyouts, and a lot of newspapers have gone through some pretty bad stuff, but Gannett has always been a pretty strong chain. But I just think that the atmosphere is a little scary everywhere.
Some people argue that critics are out of touch with the movie tastes of the public…
CP: I think that’s a viable complaint. With more and more blogging, with more internet sites, certainly things have become more democratized. As a woman of color, I can certainly vouch that critics have been white male dominated, over a certain age, there’s a certain groupthink that has happened. So I think that’s a fair criticism — at times. And some people would just rather get their movie suggestions from friends and word of mouth. There are times when critics’ choices and mass audience choices come together — Juno, which turned out to be a big movie, and critics generally liked it — but that’s always been the case. I don’t think this is anything new. Critics have always championed certain kinds of movies, certain kinds of books, certain kinds of art, and the masses have not always gone along with their particular choices.
What word or phrase do you over-use?
CP: I have to catch myself from over-using the word “ultimately.” I think we all tend to over-use “captivating” and “compelling” (and I’m certainly guilty). And then there’s the really overblown stuff, the major hyperbole. Really, how many films are truly “spell-binding?”
What has been your most bizarre movie-going experience?
CP: Going to a movie in the afternoon at a studio and watching a colleague fall asleep just a few minutes into it and listening to him snore loudly throughout it. I looked for his review on Friday and he loved the movie!
Check out Claudia Puig’s latest reviews and features in the Life section of USA Today.
