Movie Discussion Thread

It may just be my tin foil hat, but following up on what you and TwoEars mentioned, I feel that a bunch of film critics these days place a lopsided emphasis on certain themes being pushed to the forefront - namely gender, LGBT and racial issues.

I have no issues with such representation, even if it does not directly conform to my own stance and opinions, but I don't think it is fair when films become more critically acclaimed / lauded / prominent just because it adopts / embraces a more liberal stance.

Films like Black Panther are great films because the artistry, acting and sets are superb (amongst other things). It is also great that this film expouses aspects of black culture and history, which in turn lends it its status as a work of 'representation'. But there is no direct 'cause and effect' thing at play here. Black Panther was not well received or critically acclaimed because it is a film that touches on black culture and history.

On the flipside, there is TLJ. To me, the character of Rose encapsulated what was a deliberate effort by the producers of the film to play the race and gender 'card'. Like I said, I have no problem with this whatsoever in itself. I love plenty of strong, well-written female characters in many recent films. (Mildred Hayes in Three Billboards is utterly awesome). The thing I take issue with is how the character of Rose felt completely out of place, to the extent of cringeworthiness. To the detriment of the coherency of the film. To the extent that it felt as if she was created and written solely for the sake of being seen as an act of 'representation'. And although I'd like to feel otherwise, I cannot help but feel this judgement call paid off and that critics were partial to the film just because of this.

It's a rather sensitive topic I'm touching on here, and I know this whole comment might ruffle some feathers, so I won't continue. I guess what I'm saying, to put it really bluntly, is that I don't appreciate the recent overt emphasis in arts and entertainment in pushing certain narratives and agendas, to the extent where is compromises the integrity of what constitutes good / bad works.

I don't wish to see Casey Afflecks performance in Manchester By The Sea receive muted praise because of his alleged mistreatement of women earlier in his career. I hope that Wind River was not snubbed from major awards considerations because it was distributed by The Weinstein Company. I pray that there will be no furore or boycott or backlash if a truly great film were made which contained a scene of male on female violence.

I just wish that the pursuit of social progress remain somewhat independent from film / art appreciation.

 

Yes, because art never imitates or comments on cultural and social issues. *sigh*

The two cannot be independent or art loses all its power.

On one hand, I get what you're saying. Simply because something is liberal/progressive/etc. doesn't automatically make it good. Very valid and fair point.

On the other hand, the fact that underrepresented and neglected/abused/marginalized members of society are gaining attention is good on every level. People are being forced to recognize that racism, marginalization, inequality, etc. are all alive and well. Art is one of the best platforms we have to bring attention and awareness to it.

 

I'm not saying that art should not embrace its power to push forth certain social issues. I'm merely saying that pushing forth social issues isn't the only purpose of art, and that perhaps we're beginning to reach a tipping point.

I'm definitely all for art being used as a platform to give the marginalized/minority a strong voice that can be heard in the larger community. I happen to think that this is one of the very best things about film and art in general. And it's in this regard that I really enjoyed Del Toro's speech during his Oscar acceptance speech.

 

Tell that to the 1960s

Current events are driving this. Not Hollywood.

It all goes in cycles.

 

The problem is when someone inserts that into their art and does it poorly. When you throw social-justice-cause-de-jour in your art simply to pander you make poor art and piss off reactionaries who don't share your position. If you care about bringing attention to something or trying to generate sympathy for a marginalized class you need to take care to wrap it in a more involving story.

It should be able to stand on it's own without the cause-de-jour. The point is to make someone identify, empathize, or sympathize with people of whatever class your are trying to promote and that requires more than just throw in some members of that class and make a big a deal about it. People who are already against you will see it for the pandering that it is just be angry that it's getting in the way of their entertainment. OTOH if you actually make people care about the characters you can inspire action in the apathetic and cause cogitative-dissonance in opponents which may lead them to revising their opinion.

Things get even worse once the critics start falling for the pandering. Then everything descends into flame wars.

The most I actually follow movies these days is watching CinnemaSins on YouTube, but the gaming world is full of the exact same thing.

 

Well, yeah.

That's what I said in the part of my quote that you snipped out

 

I was trying to give more of a general case.

 

I'm taking all of your guys notes my cult movie podcast a buddy and I are starting.

We should be start recording here in a couple of weeks.

 

Who says every movie is Art? I have an art degree but not every drawing or painting that I do is done as Art and I wouldn't call every movie 'Art'.

 

Bad art is still art.

 

Just because something is written, sung, painted, sculpted, filmed etc. doesn't mean that it was created as Art (in the larger sense) in the first place, is my point. Whether or not bad art is art is one thing... whether it was ever 'Art' in the first place is something else.

 

Finally watched Lady Bird tonight.

I would have chosen this AND Get Out over Shape of Water for movie of the year. It's not really close.

 

That seems like quite a restrictive definition of art to me...

 

Not everything drawn, written, filmed, sung, etc. is done so in the interest of creating 'Art'. I don't see that as restrictive, just... matter of fact. The point is that just because something is on film doesn't mean that it deserves to be, or was intended to be, evaluated as 'Art'.

Sometimes people just make movies to get paid.

 

And then there are the people who made this:

 

I would have to disagree.

Why do people even get paid to make movies? How many drawings, musical compositions, or films have any practical purpose? Even when they're pumped out by a soulless corporation for pure profit they're all still meant to trigger an emotional response so that someone will enjoy it and purchase it.

I have a much broader definition and would more or less define art as any creative endeavor intended to stimulate emotion.

 

There are sappy tampon commercials in the world that are trying to trigger emotions. You can call that Art if you want to.

 

Ok

 

Can't really say I have a problem with that.

I'm not exactly obligated to care about anything and everything that happens to fall into the category of art. Given what I think think of a lot of things most other people would call art I can't say it demeans the entire category either.

What's your definition?



Besides, if you waved a magic wand and flipped the sex demographics, there would probably be a tampon commercial in the next Superbowl commercial highlight reel.

 

The Titan, new flick from Netflix. Good? Anyone see it?