Film Club: Ross Anderson/All About Eve (1950)
The British writer talks about his profile of Dave Rubin and why All About Eve is more relevant than ever.
Welcome to the Lack of Taste Film Club, where we talk to non-cinephiles and non-professional cinephiles about themselves and the movies they love. You will find a different flavour to Film Club entries going forward. Instead of going straight to discussing the movie being chosen, we want to get to know the guest more. A general Q&A will come first, and the movie comes second.
Ross Anderson is a British writer whose work has appeared in Quillette, Tablet, The Dispatch and elsewhere. His most prominent work is a long profile of Dave Rubin, the host of The Rubin Report, detailing the journey of a struggling gay comedian, who went from presenting with the progressive outfit The Young Turks and eventually found success as a conservative political commentator, closely feeding his ideological base the things they want to hear. We talk about that and his interest in writing about movies and TV. Then we take a look at All About Eve, a film he thinks is parallel to the conversation we had about Rubin.
This is a public version of our conversation. The uncut equivalent goes extensively into Dave Rubin, as well as his comments about Ye’s downfall, If you want to check it out, please subscribe.
What fascinated you about Dave Rubin that you wanted to profile him?
I've been a great admirer of Sam Harris since my early teens and used to watch basically any and every interview he did. YouTube's algorithm was well attuned to this so recommended Rubin's September 2015 interview with Harris on the day of release, and I subscribed. That was the first episode of the post-TYT/RIOT 'Rubin Report', and fit exactly what I was looking for - a moderate, intellectually curious, liberal show that was interested in moving past the less rational parts of the online/campus left, and responding the worst issues with the mainstream media. I became a fan and was generally positive through his 'Intellectual Dark Web' period, where his show became the stage for some of the most interesting discussions online. However, over time, the cracks in the show ultimately became the show. He went from airing bad ideas to voicing them himself; from "discussing ideas" to spewing ideological pablum and ad hominin remarks; and his critique of the mainstream press went from "this is a vital organ corrupted by institutional issues, and needs reform" to view it as some strange hivemind whose every statement must be refuted. I was a vociferous critic of Zucker's CNN, but you cannot reasonably assert that Alex Jones is more reliable than Wolf Blitzer, as Rubin has.
So, the story was interesting as he is the pinnacle example of a trend we have seen in many people; starting in a normal place, with pretty understandable objections to the establishment, and ending up in a place previously only home to cracks and mentally unhinged. That's the intellectual, political, and sociological level behind it, but perhaps more important for me was just how odd, interesting, and psychologically compelling his story was. "Why did Majid Nawaz change?" is not particularly interesting; he was an extremist before and has come home, albeit now with a different set of deranged beliefs. There's little mystery to how Candace Owens became who she is; morally vacant grifting trolls provide few characterological surprises. But Rubin isn't like that. And "gay New York comedian who never made it on the mainstream networks, despite always trying, after years of hustling, finally makes financial success in the political era by selling the laziest product to the lowest-tier base?". That's inherently fascinating.
I noticed that the profile is written in Quillette, a publication that would be quite sympathetic to the original intentions of The Rubin Report. It got an array of interesting responses. Some readers did not like it, but there are many who praised it, even if they are not fans of the magazine. What does it say about the nature of your profession and how it plays into the expectations of both platform and audience?
I would somewhat challenge the thesis of your question, as I think there's a signal problem. Do the majority of Quillette readers approve of the piece? I don't know, but commenters are rarely representative of a publication's median reader, and the mood in comment sections doesn't necessarily reflect the broader mood of all readers. Similarly, though I appreciate the positive remarks by many on Reddit and Twitter, those who dislike a publication are more inclined to vocally express their approval of an article said publication releases that they really agree with. I consider or dismiss comments individually, and those that are particularly thoughtful, witty, or kind really do stick with me; but it's important to remember such comments don't say a lot about the broader sentiment of readers, most of whom will never publicly comment upon it, just the most passionate or engaged. If you're a crowd-funded content creator, commenters are therefore the most likely people to become paying subscribers, so tailoring what you do according to their general vibe can be useful if you want the fastest (or simplest) route to increasing revenue.
But if you're not that - or even if you are - it's best to remember they don't represent most readers. The beautiful contradiction is that journalism, podcasting, writing etc., is a communicative medium, and the best platforms and writers know how to communicate and reach as many people as possible - but they do so without that reach changing what they provide. That's difficult but there are many people who have modelled that before me and I try to follow in their stead. I write for myself, according to the high standards I would like to see all writers follow, and if I'm happy with my work, that's enough for me. Nice and thoughtful comments mean a lot to me, but they're extras, and not motivating. I actually use a Minimal Twitter extension to hide likes, comments etc. on the platform and only get notifications from accounts I follow. I have no idea how many followers I have and I'm in no hurry to change that.
Reading your profile, I think it is very easy to pick apart Dave Rubin and his flaws as a presenter. There are some very good critiques of his approach, and I have done my fair share, except Rubin is very talented at portraying people who disagree with him with personal venom, that even the slightest disagreement means that his fans will ultimately see you as an enemy. How would you try to persuade them that Rubin is not a reliable person to depend on as part of their media diet?
I would ask people to look for principle, quality, and consistency, and try to think through a less personal, partisan lens. If you put Rubin's take on election fraud against The Dispatch, it's hard for an intellectually honest person to find his "just asking question" raised-eyebrow scepticism more persuasive than their detailed, researched, analytic answers. You can do the same thing when comparing Rubin's responses to critics with what they actually say. In my case, I was deliberate only to make normative claims about his character and manner that I could back by evidence I produced; and though you may ultimately disagree with my claims, they are clearly not baseless. Conversely, when Rubin calls someone a dishonest partisan actor, a liar, or just some name, it's just ad hominem. Ultimately, any argument that I - or any other critic - makes about Rubin is ultimately trumped by the way he represents himself.
I notice that you have written a lot about movies and TV. What is your approach to reviewing them?
I came to writing through film criticism as I care immensely about cinema - I used to watch 300 to 500 films a year, and still watch about 250 - and saw that most being written about it were trite, including by the most famous film critics. Roger Ebert wrote in a competent, dull style, and offered similarly mediocre, insightful perspectives on film, and I wouldn't even be that generous to Mark Kermode or Peter Travers. I'm not a truly great film critic - my true skill is in deep, investigative profiles and obituaries - but I still do dabble in film and TV writing, and I just hold to the same rules I do when working on a long piece. Namely, be thorough, be interesting, be clear, and above all, write stylishly. Every schmuck in a bar knows what they thought about a film or show; you have to try and provide them with more than that. And I think I do.
Which critics would you count as influences?
The main ones would have to be Pauline Kael, Justin Chang, Walter Chaw, J. Hoberman, Andrew Sarris, and Richard Brody. Though they're historians more than critics, I have to mention David Thomson, Mark Cousins, and Sam Wasson. Probably the most important critic alive though is Armond White. White is infamous for having completely contrary opinions to everyone else and has become overly political in the way he reads films (though that critique is easily levelled at Brody too); but he has seen more films than anyone else you will read, cares deeply about the craft, and once you understand his lens (that cinema changes cultural narratives, therefore pro-optimism, anti-pessimism etc.) you really learn so much from him. I would highlight his reviews of Unbreakable, Get Out, and The Image Book as must-reads.
What are your favourite TV shows and movies you've seen last year?
I haven't had the chance to see Avatar: Way of the Water, The Menu, or Babylon, which are likely contenders, but (in no particular order) my favourite films released this year were X, Top Gun: Maverick, Official Competition, Ambulance, Everything Everywhere All At Once, The Batman, Pinocchio, Bodies Bodies Bodies, After Yang, Tar, Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Armageddon Time, and All Quiet on the Western Front.
TV was OK this year, with Severance as the clear best show, and the second season of The White Lotus impressing. The most underappreciated show - by a long way - is Tulsa King. One of the most charming, fun shows I've seen in a while.
Let’s talk about All About Eve. Can you tell me the first time you watched the film and why it became an all-time favorite for you?
It's not a film I've seen that many times, or would rank among my very favourites - those would be 2001, Shame, Blow Out, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, Anomalisa, Strangers on a Train, Her, Oldboy, My Life as Courgette, and Body Double - but it's psychologically potent and sociologically contemporaneous in a way few films from the 50s are. Many older films age well because they speak to universal themes, but All About Eve feels so uniquely well-tuned for the age of social media and the public self; of the link between our self-image and our career, and what it is to be authentic in that way. The best films are also about films themselves - the industry and people who make them - and it's hard to think of a film that more ruthlessly deconstructs the shallowness, narcissism, and illusory class of the film industry without falling into cheap, fourth-wall-breaking meta-commentary.
When I ask about a film that we can talk about, you suggested All About Eve, as the headline of your Rubin profile alludes to it. What parallels do you think exist with both the film and the piece?
I don't know how common a phenomenon this is, but without coming up with the right title, I can't really crack the article I'm trying to write. It's not that I write an article to fit a fun headline, but it needs to be snappy, witty, and capture the idea of an article that's brewing. That's true for 'Black Skinhead' - my piece on Kanye West - and it's also true for 'All About Dave'. His story is filled with big questions about how people change and become successful - whether such change comes authentically, from the eventual belief in a convenient fiction, or from the valueless pursuit of purely mercenary ends - and about the kind of media ecosystem we have were such potential inauthenticity can be lucrative. What other film juggles such themes so well? Though I won't make any direct narrative or characterological comparisons, the themes in play are very similar.
This film received the most Oscars compared to any other film, including Best Picture and Best Director for Joseph L Mankiewicz. Which aspect do you think stood out the most for you?
It's a glorious film, but its brilliance rests on the backs of Anne Baxter and Bette Davis. Individually, they both put out career-best performances - as an older woman, drifting from the spotlight, missing the love she once had; and a young, aspiring woman, with a Macbeth-esque hunger for success. The modern Academy has a poor record - it typically celebrates good films, whilst ignoring many great ones - but they were right with Mankiewicz's best (though Sleuth is underappreciated).
Do you think the character development of Eve Harrington (Ann Baxter) was based on her being artificial in order to get ahead, or is it the other way around where once she became successful, she's also superficial as well?
The film is generally about the erosion of genuine feelings. Eve's hunger to become part of that world was real, out of an intense infatuation with the images on screen, and the people who occupied them; and as she became successful, authentic feeling fizzled out and she just became a character on a set, playing her part in a social scene. She succeeded so quickly by being both a cypher and chameleon, showing her superiors exactly what they wanted to see and not bringing anything of her own, but that initial feeling was very real, the only real thing of her.
Going back to our original topic about the media, if All About Eve is released today in the digital era, what do you think it would look like?
The realistic answer is that it would be a mini-series or show like The White Lotus or Succession, talking about Hollywood in a darkly satirical way, commenting on the particular changes of our era; namely, the dominance of social media, particularly in making new stars, the darker image of Hollywood post-MeToo, and the odd status of the film industry, which no longer really makes the mid-budget, adult-targeted films that made the medium so great but still frames itself as having immense power, and lectures the proles about what's moral whilst editing to licking the CCPs boots. If made well, that could be very good, but being more specific and 'timely' wouldn't make it more relevant, let alone superior, to the timeless original. The closest film to a modern, updated version of All About Eve is Ingrid Goes West; and it's not bad, but how often do you hear people mentioning it?