|
Post by onebluestocking on Mar 1, 2018 1:31:46 GMT
I haven't seen BP yet, but IMO he was far and away the best thing in Civil War, so I'd be very surprised! I can't speak to the quality of the entire film yet, but I do think the trailers were Marvel's all-time best. I'm very excited to see it based on those!
|
|
|
Post by igs on Mar 1, 2018 11:36:20 GMT
I just stumbled upon this video and I think it gets many things correct about Black Panther (esp the score part!) and it's not out of nowhere because he addressed his issues with Marvel months ago in his Wonder Woman video essay. I like this channel in general, the Hobbit videos are so spot on in addressing the endless issues of that franchise and I couldn't agree more on his opinions on Game of Thrones particularly the lackluster season 7. I am not quite as into Killmonger as he is although I agree with his sentiments on him in general, and the Marvel comedy isn't a problem for me (I loved Thor Ragnarok!) but I totally understand where the complaint comes from - it's a common grievance with Star Wars The Last Jedi as well - and why it bothers some people about MCU films.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Mar 1, 2018 15:00:32 GMT
I would watch the video later but I'm of the opposite idea that comic books movies that take themselves too seriously are embarrassed of their own source material. I didn't liked Nolan's Batman Beginning for it and one of the criticism I have seen about Black Panther is this.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 7, 2019 13:54:28 GMT
Something caught my attention in Venice Film Festival! Or maybe even before it. I recently see a few American publications giving negative reviews to the new Woody Allen film. Maybe it's a bad a film! I haven't watched it and, you know, Allen has a few classics but he produces so much stuff that a lot of it can feel recycled. Still, after all the deservedly or not deservedly negative press campaign against him, including critics claiming they never would support him again, I just couldn't take seriously those reviews! Then in Venice, confirmed rapist Roman Polanski released his new movie. The Jury's president claims she won't see it. Then I read a some kind of positive review on American magazine Film Comment by a critic I respect. Half of the review is about the case against him and about how horrible person he is and the review is not exactly super excited about the film but the conclusion is that it's a good film. Then an American critic, someone who I don't respect (a guy who has a strong presence on Twitter, present himself as some kind of art film guy but it's one of those types who waits until midnight when the embargoes end to declare how much he usually hates the new Marvel/DC flick!) tweeting about how bad is the movie. Days later he posts an Italian newspaper page in which Polanski's film is declared the best movie in the festival by the Italian critics. Of course, he made fun of Italian critics. It shows how retrograde they are because they don't think like him and his woke followers who haven't even watched the film. Then yesterday, it wins the FIPRESCI award! You know, the critics award! So it's not just the Italian critics who are "sexist" enough to love that film but critics from all around the world! Today, AFP claims it's the favorite to win the Golden Lion. If it doesn't, probably Lucrecia Martel would be blamed! Now I'm just reading Nate Parker's American Skin won a side prize award! After his film was penned by Anglo critics because you know, he is a bad guy! And he is! I read his trial papers and even when he won, it was clear he did it! It's just that she was his girlfriend so the jury believed he had the right to rape her (the friend he "invited" to also raped her was declared guilty because she wasn't his girlfriend!) That was a case in which clearly the system failed! But that doesn't have anything to do with film criticism! I don't know! If you feel bad about say something positive about these guys why not doing what the Film Comment guy did and mentioning the case but then at least try to be objective about the work! I kind of feel English speaking critics are increasingly looking like fools! Puritanical and narcissistic fools claiming the rest of the world is bad and corrupt just because they aren't so fanatical like them! (I know it's not just American and British people but mostly, yes, they are. We also have people like Martel but at least she said he has the right to be in the Festival. I'm not sure those critics are that subtle!) On the other hand, I saw a tweet by another Twitter obsessed professional critic who I also never liked, asking if it's right to write a negative review about a well meaning films with the right representation! So yes, art isn't important for them anymore just moralistic manifests! At least he has doubts, I guess! But what kind of critic ask for that! He clearly doesn't even think for himself! EDITED, I just saw this and yes, Polanski movie is the critics favorite, There's not even a controvery there! The less stars are by Indiwire! Not a surprise! He isn't the guy I was talking about but he also writes for Indiwire. The also American THR loved it! Still the other Indiwire guy dared to suggest people (Italian critics, to be exact) who liked the film were morally corrupt!
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Sept 7, 2019 17:13:45 GMT
This is an interesting topic. I agree that sometimes wokeness gets in the way of discussions about artistic value, but I also think there’s some meat behind it. Successful films brings acclaim, money and power to its directors and producers. If they are criminals (rapists, pedophiles), shouldn’t that be taken into account in some way? Otherwise, we’re just celebrating their ability not to get caught by giving them gobs of accolades because they can make good art.
Imo, there’s got to be some kind of intersectionality between these things. Should art be praised or disliked on its own merits alone? Or does the maker have some kind of responsibility to society? I’m not an advocate of making pablum, but, and especially in these difficult times with so many people in powerful positions getting away with murder or abuse, it seems wrong somehow to keep giving them more power and money via critical acclaim.
I think these questions have become more difficult over the last century, when art turned away from being merely pretty (for the most part), and started tackling societal issues. The biography of the artist has become one of the tools for understanding and critiquing the art itself, so why shouldn’t their behavior also be critiqued?
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Sept 7, 2019 17:14:55 GMT
I always enjoy reading your posts about film critics, etc. Sgev. It's such a minefield nowadays. It certainly seems like some can't ever separate the "art" from whether they "like" a certain artist. Certainly there are those whose art is damaged by who they are, but sometimes the situation is complex and deserves a nuanced examination.
An Twitter or social media doesn't seem to be a place where nuanced thinking usually prevails.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Sept 7, 2019 17:37:55 GMT
Interesting discussion points QZ.
I certainly don't think convicted murders and rapists should be celebrated just because they make incredible art, but I also think that it is especially important nowadays to consider that it is becoming more and more common to destroy people on nothing more than rumours on social media.
Not a lot of consideration seems to be given for any type of due process. It is more like gossip about it, vilify them on Twitter, fire them or make them into social pariahs, and then look into whether the rumours are true. Somehow that just seems wrong to me.
And it also seems that it doesn't matter if the offense took place decades ago (and an apology was given) or was not considered offensive at the time, current standards are the only ones used to pass judgment.
And there also doesn't seem to be any differentiation between degrees of offence. Minor infractions are treated with the "nuclear" reactions that serious crimes are. That bothers me too.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 7, 2019 19:00:55 GMT
Agreed that one of the worst consequences is that minor issues are treated as big crimes and that due process is completely ignored.
But also if the celebration of criminal's art is forbidden then we shouldn't talk about Caravaggio or a lot of classic rock albums produced by Phil Spector, including The Beatles!
I mean if someone commits a crime he or she should pay society for it. It doesn't matter who he or she is but why blacklist art? I remember an old article by a woman who said she was victim of a sexual crime and still accepted to work in a movie for Polanski. Why? Well, because he is a great artist and she said, she wanted to learn from him! This maybe sound corny but isn't better revenge to steal that valuable knowledge from those criminals instea banning it or saying it's bad and ignoring it? I know the excuse is that the person is gaining money with it and yes, he and others (innocent) people are gaining with it but demanding festivals, actors, crew, critics and public ignore and boycott artists because they committed or maybe committed a crime sounds to summary justice. Why not fight for a fairer criminal justice instead? Or for due process
Anyway, Martel indeed awarded Polanski with the Grand Jury Award. The Golden Lion went to The Joker, a movie some American critics think it's dangerous, by the way!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 7, 2019 19:09:09 GMT
This made me laugh!
It says Lucrecia Martel will down in history as the first Jury President to award a superhero film! The thing is it seems it was The Joker or Polanski and she was already acclaimed as a Me Too heroine! Seriously I don't envy her! EDITED I just saw a tweet by a random attacking Joaquin Phoenix for not saying nothing after his movie was awarded in the same ceremony that a Roman Polanski film was also awarded! The bastard! He is obviously the person to blame for Polanski crime! 😉
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 7, 2019 23:27:41 GMT
I'm reading some Twitter reactions and most Film types are disappointed on Martel for awarding a comic book movie and with it, a director famous for doing The Hangover movies. Very little about Polanski film.
A few woke types are the ones cancelling Martel for awarding him. A woman actually posted the names of the Jury members so people can cancelled them. Another posted the name of the actors (just actors who cares for the crew or producers!) of the film! Someone moaned about how cancel culture is clearly not damaging as some people say it's because someone like Polanski is still doing films and winning awards (Of course, powerful people is not affected by what a very few bullies say on Twitter, the ones affected and sometime destroyed are the not-famous ones and people with mental health issues like depression). Some guy think Woody Allen and Roman Polanski are friends (no, Polanski is/was friend of Mia Farrow, not Allen and actually I read an interview of Farrow from last year and she says she would like to work with Polanski again. Is she cancelled? Or we just cancel the actors or more specifically actresses her kids say we should cancel?). And there is another person attacking Joaquin Phonix for... being there! And because he didn't say anything during the Casey Affleck scandal! Why he never say something about polemic stuff that it doesn't matter where he stands it inevitably would make people angry?! WHY?!
On the other hand, a misogynist guy just answered a Mexican female critic tweet saying Martel is an example of why female Jury presidents aren't good: they foolishly give the awards to political correct films instead of the good ones! The poor woman is being attacked because she awarded a comic book flick that it's being accused of incite to violence and to... POLANSKI!!! LOL
|
|