I don't know if this is a larger pattern or random chance, but I've seen a lot of bad movie criticism lately. Most of these are too frivolous or silly to merit a response, but I finally found one that broke me:
Some brief thoughts:
1. I tend to find myself somewhere in the middle of the didactic/aesthetic dichotomy of art. The fundamental purpose of art is to communicate truth as one sees it in a nature that more direct methods cannot achieve. Rank didacticism is pretty obviously incongruent with that vision. At the same time, cowardly or ignorant art that doesn't at least occasionally put its cards on the table betrays the very idea of truth itself. In short, I just want a well-told story that conveys a richness and a consideration that doesn't waste the attentive viewer's time.
Judging by the above, I am guessing the OP falls more towards the didactic side of this spectrum. Which is fine, whatever, people can engage with moving pictures in a different way than I do. But the specific problem here is that the OP appears to be applying a didactic lens to an incredibly aesthetic film. This fundamental mismatch of object and subject doesn't just lead to an incorrect take; Rather, the contradiction rooted in her own misunderstanding is instead externalized, and is thus resolved by casting suspicion on Anderson (which, I should note, is directly refuted by his previous work). Once again, desiring art that explicitly conforms to your morals isn't wrong per se, but expecting or even needing art to do so will only lead to trouble.
2. Critical fallacies of this flavor are commonly summarized as "depiction does not equal endorsement." Getting in the mind of an "evil" character or showing something bad happening does not mean the director/actor/writer thinks said character or event is cool and good (not that it even necessarily matters). The OP specifically mentions prison and class struggle, and yes, the film does depict both of these things. But just because the specific characters of the film navigate the specific events of the film in the way they do does not mean that the film itself is explicitly or even implicitly advocating for carceralism/fascism/etc. This doesn't mean that those aspects of the film shouldn't be interrogated—they absolutely should be! But a meaningful critique requires much more than the paucity of thought and the appeal to suspicion on display here.
3. One of the most cited observations of the late Mark Fisher is his idea that the didactic nature of certain works of art "performs our anti-capitalism for us." He specifically cites the second half of Wall-E, and how it's easy for viewers to sneer at how the material excess afforded to the ship's passengers blinded them to reality. The OP's analysis is literally the contrapositive of this; Performing one's own anti-capitalism by severely misreading a piece of art. And as we all remember from math class (?) the contrapositive is as equally valid as the original statement, which means I have proven her wrong with math. Never say your undergraduate degree doesn't matter.
4. I am not overly familiar with the OP, but I do recall listening to her on a podcast episode. Her area of expertise (feminist critique of the modern concept of family) is compelling and worthwhile, but it's also unquestionably provocative. Such an area of advocacy requires her to challenge a dominant structure in our society; one that many people identify with on a personal level. In effect, she has to be explicitly contrarian to advance such a position. To be clear, contrarianism is service of a specific moral goal is fine and good. But when that contrarianism escapes its useful context, as it appears to have done here, it can lead to wrong and/or unnecessarily vitriolic rhetoric. This may then cause others to question whether your seemingly purposeful contrarianism was offered in good faith, potentially undermining the whole basis of your work. I'm not less likely to believe in the deleterious effects of the patriarchy as the result of her bad takes; my moral commitments are much, much stronger than that. But I am less likely to listen to her specific advocacy.
5. As is my tendency when encountering "divisive" art, I thought The French Dispatch was pretty good.
No comments:
Post a Comment