Why modern movies suck - they teach us awful lessons

[Paul Farquhar]

It can be political with out taking obvious sides or the politics are not relevant to you. As pointed out above by the comments on Michelangelo or Shakespeare's History plays.

Shakespeare's priority was keeping in with the establishment!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Out of curiosity, how many people here with an opinion about politics in Hollywood movies know what the Hays Office and the Motion Picture Production Code are?

(or have a favorite Pre-Code movie - some of them are wild!)

Artists are very good at operating in oppressive environments and learning how to transgress without openly doing so. And there are plenty of films made during that time that are interesting and good, and many are so because of how they got around the code. But at the same time, there was an explosion of well crafted film after the Hays code ended (and I don't think it is an accident). But I am probably biased, the 70s is one of my favorite periods of film making.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Shakespeare's priority was keeping in with the establishment!

Yup! he had a theatre and a troop of hungry actors to feed. Wrote some cracking stories and managed to humanise his villains often as not.

 

[Bedrockgames]

A lot of things we don't think of as political now were at the time (Michelangelo's David was an anti-Medici statement, Macbeth had a subtext about the Gunpowder Plot), but I'd say there is art that isn't political, or at least not intended to be.

That is true. And those things can be interesting. At the same time, MacBeth is not great because it has gunpowder plot subtext. That isn't why we remember lines from it, and why it moves us today. And anti-Medici sentiment isn't why we are still in awe of David.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I want to say, I think it is totally valid for:

1) films to be political

and

2) critics to critique the politics of a film

My big issue is when a critic uses dog whistle terminology to bring sexist or racist views into a critique. I believe "Mary Sue" is such a term.

I mean, political critique is a really fun way to analyze movies! One critique I have of a lot of action and superhero films is that a lot of them are about one step from facist propaganda. And guess what? I really enjoy watching them still!

But if I want to be taken seriously as a critic, and not just preach to a choir of folks who already agree with me, I'm going to avoid using dog whistle terminology to get my point across.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My big issue is when a critic uses dog whistle terminology to bring sexist or racist views into a critique. I believe "Mary Sue" is such a term.

I mean, political critique is a really fun way to analyze movies! One critique I have of a lot of action and superhero films is that a lot of them are about one step from facist propaganda. And guess what? I really enjoy watching them still!

But if I want to be taken seriously as a critic, and not just preach to a choir of folks who already agree with me, I'm going to avoid using dog whistle terminology to get my point across.

Wouldn't more good faith on both sides of this be better though? One issue I have in these kinds of conversations is, it feels like two sides have been clashing the past several years cultural, and distrust one another, and those of us who enter into the discussion and use a term one of the sides decided indicates something bad, we get slammed for it. I think a better approach if someone uses a term like that and you are a little suspicious of their usage is to just dig into it a little more and ask what they mean, what the specifics of their critique is (they might not even be using the term correctly and be trying to say something entirely different).

I think a big part of what makes media discussions for me exhausting, and why I have substantially pulled back how much I engage with people on social media about media, is there is an unhealthy level of distrust because people have learned to read other issues into where folks stand on something like whether Rey is a good character or not).

For the record, I liked Rey and I thought he actress who portrayed her was very good in that role. But I could understand why another viewer might be annoyed at how powerful she was from the start of the movie (I think a lot of them just wanted to see her train more and work more for her powers, like you often have in many of the martial arts films star wars is emulating). I don't think any of that makes her a mary sue but I can understand someone not sharing my view on the character. I had issues with the trilogy overall, but those issues didn't seem to align with a lot of the discussion around the movies on social media.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Wouldn't more good faith on both sides of this be better though? One issue I have in these kinds of conversations is, it feels like two sides have been clashing the past several years cultural, and distrust one another, and those of us who enter into the discussion and use a term one of the sides decided indicates something bad, we get slammed for it. I think a better approach if someone uses a term like that and you are a little suspicious of their usage is to just dig into it a little more and ask what they mean, what the specifics of their critique is (they might not even be using the term correctly and be trying to say something entirely different).

I think a big part of what makes media discussions for me exhausting, and why I have substantially pulled back how much I engage with people on social media about media, is there is an unhealthy level of distrust because people have learned to read other issues into where folks stand on something like whether Rey is a good character or not).

For the record, I liked Rey and I thought he actress who portrayed her was very good in that role. But I could understand why another viewer might be annoyed at how powerful she was from the start of the movie (I think a lot of them just wanted to see her train more and work more for her powers, like you often have in many of the martial arts films star wars is emulating). I don't think any of that makes her a mary sue but I can understand someone not sharing my view on the character. I had issues with the trilogy overall, but those issues didn't seem to align with a lot of the discussion around the movies on social media.

The trust gets lost when a critic uses a term like "Mary Sue."

That is a sign to me, as a reader, that the critic is not acting in good faith.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And politics is what can help or harm real people.

And if this is the chief concern, one thing to consider is if you make everything political, you make politics impossible and end up with what we have now: neither side is willing to budge or compromise because every single little issue is viewed as existentially important. So I think there is real world danger and a real threat to the protecting real people from harm when we make everything in the culture political.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The trust gets lost when a critic uses a term like "Mary Sue."

That is a sign to me, as a reader, that the critic is not acting in good faith.

That strikes me as an unhealthy level of distrust. That seems like a very flimsy foundation for that conclusion to be honest. Perhaps they are. I mean in general the more emotional terms people employ, the greater the likelihood they are acting in bad faith. But they also could simply be passionate about the issue, they could be making a valid criticism of the character, they could be using the term in a different way than you think, etc. They might also simply not have the vocabulary you have to discuss media. The problem I have here is we are taking one word a person uses, one that doesn't necessarily indicate a person is coming from a mysoginistic point of view, and using that to read into whether their intentions are in good or bad faith. I am as cagey as the next guy, but this seems like a super cagey way for us to interact with each other as a community.

 

[BRayne]

That strikes me as an unhealthy level of distrust. That seems like a very flimsy foundation for that conclusion to be honest. Perhaps they are. I mean in general the more emotional terms people employ, the greater the likelihood they are acting in bad faith. But they also could simply be passionate about the issue, they could be making a valid criticism of the character, they could be using the term in a different way than you think, etc.

I mean what character that's commonly called a Mary Sue actually is written like this?:

"Gee, golly, gosh, gloriosky," thought Mary Sue as she stepped on the bridge of the Enterprise. "Here I am, the youngest lieutenant in the fleet—only fifteen and a half years old." Captain Kirk came up to her. "Oh, Lieutenant, I love you madly. Will you come to bed with me?"
"Captain! I am not that kind of girl!"
"You're right, and I respect you for it. Here, take over the ship for a minute while I go get some coffee for us."
Mr. Spock came onto the bridge. "What are you doing in the command seat, Lieutenant?"
"The Captain told me to."
"Flawlessly logical. I admire your mind."