Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by RGA (R) on April 09, 2020 at 10:52:46

In Reply to: RE: Well, you don't have to view every film in the world, posted by tinear on April 09, 2020 at 09:25:13

Well critics are not necessarily any sort of gold standard either - directors choose best directors. They also select who gets those life-time achievement awards. So when some "nobody" on a forum starts on that XYZ director is an overrated hack I often laugh and wonder what they have actually done artistically that was worth a crap.

Film is art - it's different than reviewing cars, stereos, or toasters.

To be a good art/film critic they have to have a pretty wide palette in that they can fairly evaluate all genres no matter the subject.

Take Horror - many of the good ones offer some commentary on society, mankind (humanity), consumerism, (Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead and George Romero in general) etc. The ability to see through the visceral (ie; past the gore) to what was actually the theme can only be done by critics at a higher level than the "horror movies are shlock" types. People with literature degrees tend to trump people who just know how to work the F-stop on a camera. But if the critic can't see past some red paint passing for blood then that critic is useless IMO.

Satire (JoJo Rabbit) runs flat on the literal minded (so does dark humor). So they frankly don't "get" Pulp Fiction's humour (or even realize it is a comedy) or probably any of Tarantino's other films. Do these critics even get that many of them are linked from film to film that there are set pieces that are carried over from film to film - the same white Honda car is in Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill and Death Proof or that Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction is the brother of Vic Vega in Reservoir Dogs or that Kill Bill vol 1 and 2 are movies that the characters in Pulp Fiction would be watching in their "universe" - Mia Wallace is playing Beatrix Kiddo in Kill Bill. Hell those Kill Bill movies were set up in Pulp Fiction in the $5 milkshake scene. The dance scene in Pulp Fiction is taken from the movie 8 1/2 not, mistakenly assumed, a prior John Travolta picture.

Dark Humour, Science Fiction, Satire typically demands more from an audience. That is why when I see people gravitate to "pretty" cinematography and films built on camera angles with few words and more pictures I am less impressed with them as critics.

Even the well intentioned critics and sometimes well written reviews of Satirical film miss the point. The Hitler character in JoJo Rabbit comes from the mind of a 10 year old vision of what Hitler is representing to him in the absence of his father - a monster in the guise of an imaginary friend. He is not "actually Hitler" so it's an important differentiation that again fails to be realized by critics who operate in a black and white literal mind. If one laughs at the imaginary friend Hitler they are not laughing at Hitler.

I mean it should be obvious when "the main reason they present Hitler this way, however, is to deconstruct fascist thinking. Jojo can't even tie his shoes, and he sees the Third Reich in the way a young American boy would picture Navy Seals. Through him, WWII is almost a fairy tale adventure — there's even a scene where he sips watered-down soup across from Hitler, gorging on a roasted unicorn." https://badgerherald.com/artsetc/2019/11/21/jojo-rabbit-is-a-jaw-dropping-take-on-satire/

Although the film is set in the Nazi era, it, in fact, laughs in the face of present-day hatemongers and institutionalised propaganda machinery.
Jojo Rabbit uses Germany as an allegory to convey what indoctrinators and manipulators can do with the conscience of today's youth.

And what is also the point of satire is to make the viewer think and feel uncomfortable about what they are seeing. A good satire isn't supposed to be well loved by all. It should have people rail against it as they railed against The Producers back in 1967.