FAQs about the ins and outs of being a movie critic.

Q: How do you see the movies early?
A: With my eyes. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Q: I will stop reading RIGHT NOW if this is just going to be smart-aleck answers.
A: OK, OK. Most films have advance screenings before they open. Some films have press screenings, to which only press are invited (duh), usually held at 10 a.m. And then other films have promo screenings, held in the evening, to which press and the public are invited (usually via ticket giveaways on radio stations), where they tape off a few rows for critics.

For indie films and other arthouse fare, the studios often avoid the expense of renting a theater for a screening by sending screener tapes to the critics to watch at home.

Q: Screenings at 10 in the morning? With no audience? Doesn’t that make it hard to enjoy, say, a comedy?
A: No, but you’re not alone in thinking that. It took some getting used to, but once I’d been at it a few months, seeing films at 10 a.m. (some were even at 9 a.m., back in the old days!) didn’t seem strange anymore. I’ve been just as scared or entertained or whatever sitting with only four other people in a theater at 10 a.m. as I would have been in a packed house at 7 p.m.

In fact, since audiences tend to distract me, what with their whispering and their wrapper-rattling and their shuffling around and whatnot, I probably get MORE enjoyment out of a film that I see in a very small group, regardless of what time of day it is.

That said, the studios tend to think that with comedies — especially big, mass-appeal comedies — we’ll enjoy it more if we see it with an audience, that the laughter surrounding us will inspire us to laugh, too.

It doesn’t work. Often, we sit there in our cluster, glancing around the theater in amazement that these people are actually LAUGHING at this. And other times, we’re the only ones laughing, and we wonder why no one else is. I think if you watch movies for a living, you probably are past the point where hearing chuckles behind you subconsciously forces you to join in on the chuckling yourself.

Q: How far in advance are these screenings held? Days? Weeks?
A: Usually days. Typically, screenings are Monday and/or Tuesday and/or Wednesday for films being released that Friday. Sometimes we’ll see one the previous Thursday (eight days before it opens). Sometimes, if the studio feels particularly confident that early promo screenings will lead to positive “buzz,” they’ll have several screenings, sometimes starting as early as six weeks before the release date. (Strangely, though they encourage the public who comes to these screenings to tell their friends how great it is, the critics are still under strict orders not to print their reviews early — even if they’re positive.)

Q: Do you critics all sit together?
A: Yep. At promo screenings, it’s sort of by necessity, since the studio reps have taped off seats in a particular area for us. But even at press-only screenings, we still tend to sit close to each other, if only so we can chit-chat before the movie starts.

I’m told the critics in some other cities hate each other, see each other as competition, and so on, and won’t fraternize or even sit next to each other. Those critics are big babies. Here in the SLC, we’re all friendly, keep each other in the loop on upcoming screenings, have been known to socialize outside of work, etc. One of my critic buddies even helped me move into my new apartment, and I’m the father of another one’s child (but don’t tell him).

Q: Where do you sit?
A: We’ve grown fond of the first couple rows of the “stadium seating” part of the theater. I like the very front row of that section, as it allows me to put my feet up on the railing. The only theater we ever deal with that doesn’t have stadium seating is the Broadway Centre downtown; there, we tend to be toward the back, off to one side or the other. We always sit near the aisle, wherever we are.

When I go to the movies on my own (i.e., not at a “screening”), I tend to sit farther back, and in the middle (unless the theater is crowded, then I aim for the aisle). I’ll go back as far as necessary to avoid having anyone sitting behind me. I think I’m afraid of being attacked by predators.

Q: Do you stay through the credits?
A: Not unless there are hilarious outtakes or something. (By the way: I think ALL movies should have hilarious outtakes at the end. ALL MOVIES.) If they’re just straight credits, we tend to dash out the door as soon as they commence, to beat the rush. This means we’ve missed a few bits that come after the credits are completely over, but I consider the advantage of getting to the parking lot before the crowd does to far outweigh that.

Q: Do you take notes? What do you write? Does the note-taking make you miss important stuff in the movie?
A: Hey, one question at a time, Mr. Pushy. I do take notes. I’ll jot down a few key plot elements to make sure I get my facts straight, but mostly what I write are adjectives. As I’m watching a movie, I’m simultaneously processing it: What sort of movie is this? What are these characters’ personalities like? And so when good ways of describing the movie or the characters pop into my head, I write them down so I don’t forget.

The other major thing I tend to write down are events in the film that exemplify the movie or the characters: So-and-So does or says such-and-such, and if I reference that in the review, it will go a long way toward describing that character. (Amelie’s fascination with breaking the crust on creme brulee was the thing all the critics mentioned about her, for example, because it told us, in a nutshell, what sort of person she was.)

And no, I don’t tend to miss anything when I’m jotting. For one thing, I don’t jot much: At the most, it’s maybe 100 words over the course of the movie. But also, I’ve gotten used to finding a blank spot on my notepad in the dim light, setting my pen at the starting point, and then writing while I continue to watch the screen.

There is not necessarily any connection between note-taking and good film-reviewing, by the way. My Salt Lake Tribune colleague Sean Means takes pages and pages of notes, while Scott Renshaw at City Weekly writes almost nothing, yet they both write exceptionally well-structured, thoughtful reviews. So I suppose it’s different for everyone.

Q: Do you ever change your mind about a movie after seeing it? If so, why?
A: Meh, not really. Not drastically, anyway. A few times, I’ve given a film an A- instead of an A because I didn’t think it QUITE reached the level of “classic,” then watched the film again and realized I did, in fact, enjoy it just as much the second time (which is more or less my definition of a “classic,” a film that stands up to multiple viewings). “About a Boy” and “Moulin Rouge” come to mind.

For bad films, though, if I thought it was bad, I’m not liable to watch it again. I did find myself forced to watch “Resident Evil” and “Final Destination 2″ each a second time, though, and found them both more tolerable than I’d first thought. In both cases, however, my subsequent slight change of heart can be attributed to watching them with a fun group on a fun night while eating fun pizza — external factors that it wouldn’t be fair to include when reviewing a film.

Q: How has being a movie critic changed your moviegoing experience? Do you find you enjoy movies more or less when you are actively critiquing them?
A: I get asked this a lot, usually more in the form of, “Doesn’t having to analyze a film ruin it for you?” Usually people ask this (or, rather, assume that movie-watching HAS been ruined for me) after I’ve negatively reviewed a movie they liked.

But the answer is no, taking notes and otherwise thinking about a film doesn’t taint the movie-watching experience. On the contrary, I think it makes me enjoy films more. The more I know about how they’re made, and why they’re made, and what they’re trying to do, the more I like them. For me, thinking about something makes it MORE fulfilling, not less. Even when I’m not reviewing a film, I still derive great satisfaction from considering it, looking at how it was shot, paying attention to details, and so forth.

Hollywood often makes films that it hopes you DON’T think about, and that wish is often granted, unfortunately. There is a difference between willingly suspending your disbelief because a film is creative or clever enough to have earned it, and simply checking your brain at the door and accepting whatever the movie tells you, no matter how stupid it is. I’m sorry, but Dennis Quaid walking from Philadelphia to New York on snowshoes in a matter of hours in “The Day After Tomorrow” just doesn’t make any SENSE. I’m not “over-analyzing” it; I’m not being a fussy movie critic who doesn’t know how to have fun; I’m just using basic human common sense. If a movie can only be enjoyed by refusing to employ even that minimal level of thinking, then it’s not worth your time.

The Fox network recently aired a bonus episode of “The Simple Life,” the show where Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie go from place to place, humiliating others and, if they had any sense of shame, themselves. The promos for this broadcast called it “a lost episode” of the series, adding that it contained footage that “we weren’t allowed to show you.”

Now, the series just aired this past summer. How did they manage to lose an episode already? It’s not like it’s a show from the ’50s, and all the tapes were destroyed in a fire. It’s from June! Frankly, if it truly had gotten lost, I would consider that a blemish on Fox’s reputation, not something to brag about.

And it contains footage they “weren’t allowed” to show us the first time? I don’t know all the ins and outs of the television industry, but I’m pretty sure that whatever circumstances existed that would have prevented something from being aired four months ago still prevail today.

It’s all just hype, of course. No episodes were “lost,” and they’re not showing us anything now that they COULDN’T air during the summer. It’s the network’s way of trying to convince us that a half-hour of outtakes and leftover footage is something SPECIAL, rather than the time-filler it really is.

But I wonder: do they actually fool anyone with this? Are TV audiences that gullible? I suppose some people must be. The fact that “The Simple Life” aired in the first place is proof of that. But I’m heartened to see that the “lost” episode in question finished almost last in the ratings for its time slot. So maybe there’s hope after all.

If you watch “Scrubs” (which you should, since it’s second only to “Arrested Development” for being the Funniest Show Currently on Television), you know from last week’s episode that Turk just changed his cell phone number to 916-CALL-TURK (well, “CALL-TUR,” but he hopes people will dial the “K,” too).

Get this: If you call that number, it actually goes to the “Scrubs” set, and actors and crew members are actually answering it and talking to fans! I just called and talked to Scott (I believe it must be Scott Harris), a second assistant director. Word has it the cast members have been answering the phone, too, and that the executive producer even called them in on Thursday and Friday, when they weren’t shooting, just to answer the “Scrubs” Hotline!

How awesome is that? Scott was very friendly to me, asked my name and where I was calling from, and when I said, “I’ll let you get back to work,” he said, “Well, do you have any other questions about the show or anything?” It was like he wasn’t just answering the phone because his boss told him to for a crazy publicity stunt, but because he actually wanted to talk to fans about the show.

So if you’re a fan, call 916-CALL-TURK, and talk about the show with the people who work on it. You don’t see the jerks at “CSI” doing that.

Entertainment Weekly reports that due to the success of “Desperate Housewives,” the networks have some 20 prime-time soaps in the works for next year. Then comes a dumb quote from a TV agent that I knew was coming: “When you see ‘Housewives’ growing in the ratings each week, it shows the entire community that there is an appetite for female, character-driven shows.”

No, moron. It shows that there is an appetite for GOOD shows.

Every time there’s a new hit series, the TV execs decide that means audiences want that type of show. “Friends” made waves, so obviously people are clamoring for sitcoms about unmarried 20-somethings, right? And when “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” was huge, that was clearly a sign that audiences hungered for game shows. TV execs figured people wanted these types of programs SO MUCH that they’d even watch bad ones. So everyone rushed to make imitations of the popular shows, and almost all of them failed. Now everyone will repeat their past failures by trying to duplicate the success of “Desperate Housewives” via more whimsical prime-time female-driven soap operas.

Don’t they get it? Audiences don’t sit around thinking, “Gee, I wish the prime-time soap opera would come back into vogue!” Or, “It sure has been a while since there’s been a good sitcom about a fat, working-class husband with a skinny, pretty wife.”

No, what people think is, “I wish there were more GOOD shows on TV, instead of just crap.” And: “I wish all the crappy shows didn’t have a dozen other crappy shows exactly like them.” It’s not that people like “comedies” or “dramas” or whatever other classifications you want to make. People will watch anything, regardless of genre, as long as it’s good.

Look at the current top 20 shows, ignoring specials or sports: “CSI,” “Desperate Housewives,” “Without a Trace,” “Survivor,” “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” “Lost,” “Cold Case,” “60 Minutes,” “ER,” “The Apprentice,” “Two and a Half Men,” “Everybody Loves Raymond,” “NCIS,” “Law & Order,” “Law & Order: SVU.” You’ve got six crime dramas, three reality shows, two sitcoms, a soap opera, a news program, a medical drama, and an adventure drama. That’s an extremely wide range of tastes. The only thing they all have in common is that they’re quality shows. Well, except “Two and a Half Men,” but there’s always an anomaly.

ABC’s big new hit “Desperate Housewives” is an amusing, mildly trashy bit of fluff, somewhere between “The O.C.” and “Melrose Place” on the guilt-o-meter. But one of the most delightful things about it for me is something subtle: the episode titles.

The first three (after the pilot) — “Ah, But Underneath,” “Pretty Little Picture” and “Who’s That Woman” — are all titles of Stephen Sondheim songs, as I’m sure you immediately recognized. I hoped they would continue with that trend — there are a couple hundred titles to choose from, after all — but it ceased after those three episodes. Additional episodes, however, have also been song titles, by various non-Sondheim people: “Come in, Stranger” (Johnny Cash), “Running to Stand Still” (U2), “Anything You Can Do,” (from “Annie Get Your Gun”) and so on.

I wish the Sondheim thing would have continued. I would like to have seen an episode called “Cinderella at the Grave.” Because what would THAT be about?!

Some items of business.

First, despite my having written it 2 1/2 years ago, during the Olympics, a column about women’s hockey has received another angry letter. (It got one back when it was first published, too.) If her language is any indication, the writer may be a woman, but she’s no lady.

Second, I’ve written another column for City Weekly, published in this week’s (Nov. 4) issue. You can pick up a copy if you’re in the greater Salt Lake metropolitan area, or read it at their Web site, here.

I voted today. My local polling place is the activities room at a retirement center a block and a half from my apartment. The smell of old people and death permeated the place, but it did not overpower the musky scent of democracy in action.

I think it’s funny that people stand around on busy streets with signs telling you who to vote for. “You know, I was driving to the polling place without a CLUE who I was going to vote for, and now I know! Thank you, random stranger who holds signs. Thank you for pointing the way.”

Whoever wins the election, I just hope he wins by enough that everyone else will shut up about it. George W. Bush was hobbled right out of the starting gate with the 2000 election fiasco, with some people doubting his legitimacy as a leader even before he took office. Even if he’d been a fantastic, brilliant leader, I don’t know if he’d have ever gotten over that initial setback. Of course, if he wins today, then apparently he DID get over that initial setback. Time, and Newsweek, and CNN, and everyone else, will tell.