- Oct 26, 2017
When you think about it, chickens are just yolks who escaped the censorship of their shell.
Not one of the reviews posted in this threads advocated that we should bring back the Hays Code. People can criticize irresponsible depictions of stuff in media. I had fun with Split but the people in the mental health community calling out M.Night for his use of Dissociative Identity Disorder made valid points. I also enjoyed 13 Reasons Why but people had a right to call out how the show romanticized suicide. Same thing for video games. Most people who criticized the game Hatred didn't think it was an instruction manual just that it was in poor taste.
Yup. In case anyone wants to read up on what actual censorship looked like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code
Yes. I honestly believe that under all the hype Black Panther is no better than the average Marvel film even though the critical concensus would point to it being by far the best of the bunch. It suffers from a lot of the same problems as other MCU films (messy third act, bland cinematography, limitations of having to be part of a larger continuum). So it's a good film but I fail to see how anyone could consider it a genuinely great one.
I know that films have a tendency to either to gain or lose critical appreciation when time passes. What I meant that critics are not immune to hype (or anti-hype when it comes to Joker). It's interesting that the initial reviews from Venice where a lot more positive than the ones from Toronto. It might be partly a Europe vs. America kind of thing but I also think that all the incel-talk on the internet during Venice might have steared critics opinions about the film.If you're familiar with film criticism, you should know critics are entirely aware that reviews change with time. It's a very common practice to re-visit movies and view them in a new context.
Because that's the point--it is extremely difficult (and not desirable) to separate yourself from the context of your life/the world around you up to this point.
There's almost an entire substudy focused on "but was it actually relevant?" in film where you look at acclaimed movies years/decades later to see if they actually were as good or impactful.
Besides, you and OP seem to be separating a movie's "goodness" or "badness" from the context of its place in the world and its influences. Many of the reviews have, in fact, said "it's very well directed" "the performances are fantastic" "the cinematography is beautiful" before discussing why they ended up having issues with it.
The Birth of a Nation is a very well-made movie and pioneered filmmaking in a lot of ways. What would you rate that movie? Would you advocate detaching yourself from the fact that it portrayed the KKK in a valorous, sympathetic light just because the filmmaking was on point?
These. But it's stupid if your job is to review the film. Write another essay talking about it seperately.
Yup. And sometimes they may even annoy me if they stray too far, but then it's just a review I don't like. It doesn't mean it's not a review.Kind of a good first two replies to nail home the idea that reviews don't necessarily have to adhere to a specific standard. Reviews are opinions, and as long as those opinions are presented honestly and in good faith it's entirely fine. Referring to the cultural impact of a film is entirely ok unless you promised the reader a different set of standards.
Like this is objectively a poorly written paragraph. Good and accomplished writers-- critically acclaimed and recognized by their peers as being talented-- would never allow a paragraph in a review to do this. First allege that Scorcese was brought on so you can plagiarize him? What? Second accusing the director of not giving a shit about society with absolutely no evidence?Darkness no longer has much to do with feelings of alienation the filmmaker wants to express or purge, as was the case with a film like “Taxi Driver.” It’s not about exploring uncomfortable ideas, as was done in “The King of Comedy.” Do you think Todd Phillips, who co-wrote and directed “Joker,” and references those movies so often you might expect that Martin Scorsese was enlisted as an executive producer here as a way of heading off a plagiarism lawsuit, really cares about income inequality, celebrity worship, and the lack of civility in contemporary society? I don’t know him personally but I bet he doesn’t give a toss. He’s got the pile he made on those “Hangover” movies—which some believe have indeed contributed to the lack of civility in etc.—and can not only buy up all the water that’s going to be denied us regular slobs after the big one hits, he can afford the bunker for after the bigger one hits.