Why modern movies suck - they teach us awful lessons

[BookTenTiger]

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.

You are absolutely right that I do not trust the critical opinion of someone who uses the term "Mary Sue."

Would I trust them to fix my car, treat my illness, or help me get a mortgage loan? Sure! But I'm not going to ask them what movies I should see this weekend.

 

[Guest 85555]

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."

The term definitely is misapplied and has been used more expansively from its origin. But also that is a quote where a ridiculous usage was being made to make a broader point: it doesnt' have to be that outrageous to be a mary sue character. That said, I generally find Mary Sue to be a weak criticism, because its over applied. To me Mary Sue sounds a lot like when someone says "its lazy writing". It is not really that specific. But I think the solution there is to ask the person what they mean specifically in their criticism. If someone sees a movie I like and says "The writing was lazy" . I don't tell them to "go away because only bad faith critics would stoop to such language". I ask them what they mean by lazy. And 9 times out of 10, they tell me exactly what they mean and we have a productive conversation. One time in ten, they realize they haven't thought their criticism out that much and they rethink it. Rather than get hung up on these terms, just ask people what they are trying to say when they use them. If they aren't saying anything beyond "I hate female characters" or "I hate this movie because" that will be clear in the course of conversation.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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

Totally agreed

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.

I also agree with this but the Dog Whistle thing is part of the current political culture but in my opinion the real culprit is that certain forms of social media rewards interaction and controversy generated clicks and thus often income.

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).

It would be better but as I said to @BookTenTiger, I think that certain Social Media, looking at Youtube, and Facebook in particular clicks are king and often generate ad revenue. This as lead some to the dark path of courting and audience that will cheer on or hate on a particular take. The position that provoke the response "Oh! I never thought of it that way" usually results in the viewer/reader going away to have a thing about rather than donning their social warrior had to give it to opfor.

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).

A lot of these hot takes do not have much real merit in my opinion and are exhausting for the average punter but are there to generate a following and engagement.
It is a form of trolling.

...

 

[Guest 85555]

You are absolutely right that I do not trust the critical opinion of someone who uses the term "Mary Sue."

Would I trust them to fix my car, treat my illness, or help me get a mortgage loan? Sure! But I'm not going to ask them what movies I should see this weekend.

And I am not saying you should heed the advice of someone just because they have an opinion. I see the movies I am interested in seeing, and don't let critics sway my view one way or the other (and am much happier for it ever since I have taken this approach). I am talking more about conversations like the one we are having now, where people are talking about movies they have already seen, or talking about what they think about the state of film right now. I think there you can have a very productive conversation with someone, even if they rely on criticisms you don't share. For instance, I am not particularly in love with many of the arguments around politics on this thread. But I also recognize those arguments are being made by some very smart posters, and I am not going to write off all of their opinions, or assume their points about poltics are being made in bad faith, simply because of that one disagreement.

 

[J.Quondam]

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.

To be fair, this isn't about a conversation around a dinner table. Recall the source here: a successful youtuber. In that environment, controversy drives engagement drives money. Using weighted language to whip up the tribe and provoke outrage is exactly how one becomes successful in such an environment.
So yes, distrust is certainly warranted. It's the internet, after all.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

To be fair, this isn't about a conversation around a dinner table. Recall the source here: a successful youtuber. In that environment, controversy drives engagement drives money. Using weighted language to whip up the tribe and provoke outrage is exactly how one becomes successful in such an environment.
So yes, distrust is certainly warranted. It's the internet, after all.

To be fair it is not the only way but it is a way. Call it the Darkside way. Hate leads to Clicks and Clicks lead to money but at the cost of your soul.

 

[J.Quondam]

To be fair it is not the only way but it is a way. Call it the Darkside way. Hate leads to Clicks and Clicks lead to money but at the cost of your soul.

True. Taking off one's clothes also works well.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

True. Taking off one's clothes also works well.

I would try that but I suspect the only way it would work for me is to force people to watch it and pay me to stop. I have not figured out the first part yet.

 

[BookTenTiger]

And I am not saying you should heed the advice of someone just because they have an opinion. I see the movies I am interested in seeing, and don't let critics sway my view one way or the other (and am much happier for it ever since I have taken this approach). I am talking more about conversations like the one we are having now, where people are talking about movies they have already seen, or talking about what they think about the state of film right now. I think there you can have a very productive conversation with someone, even if they rely on criticisms you don't share. For instance, I am not particularly in love with many of the arguments around politics on this thread. But I also recognize those arguments are being made by some very smart posters, and I am not going to write off all of their opinions, or assume their points about poltics are being made in bad faith, simply because of that one disagreement.

I think I have been having a lot of interesting discourse with folks in this thread. At no point have I shut someone down because they don't agree with me. (If I have, please point it out!)

I'm not really sure what your argument here is. As someone who enjoys watching and analyzing movies, I cannot take seriously someone who uses terms like "Mary Sue." I think that is an okay opinion to have. And when talking about movies with someone, if they use the term, I will bring up that point and hopefully it'll lead to even better discussions.

 

[Guest 85555]

It would be better but as I said to @BookTenTiger, I think that certain Social Media, looking at Youtube, and Facebook in particular clicks are king and often generate ad revenue. This as lead some to the dark path of courting and audience that will cheer on or hate on a particular take. The position that provoke the response "Oh! I never thought of it that way" usually results in the viewer/reader going away to have a thing about rather than donning their social warrior had to give it to opfor.

Sure, there is a lot of that on facebook, twitter and youtube for sure. That is one reason I don't really use twitter or facebook that often. I find twitter especially bad because it has the problem you are describing with facebook and youtube plus its character limit essentially favors quips over points (it is very highshool in terms of whose voice gets elevated). With youtube there are also a lot of issues, but I also find there are a lot of very good analysis and reviews. I think the key is to engage what you encounter. I don't mean comment. I mean don't use youtube or facebook as ways of getting your ideas. Bring your own ideas to the videos you watch and view with a degree of skepticism.

But just as an example, I recently watched the Many Saints of Newark (which I greatly enjoyed). And there were lots of videos about 6 months ago negatively reviewing it on youtube and bringing in a lot of online cultural debate to attack the movie). But I have to say, watching it six months after the fact, a lot of the things people seemed to criticized, seemed much more organic to me within the film and not the problem people said it was. But I still found value in going back to many of those reviews and videos because there was still analysis in there that I could glean something from (and I found it interesting to see different peoples reactions, even if they didn't like it like I did: I at least was able to get a sense of what critics of the movie felt).

When it comes to people saying "I never thought of it that way". To me that isn't super important. I do regular movie podcast discussions with friends and we often disagree. Sometimes I have been able to persuade people about my take on a movie, or gotten them to say "gee that makes sense actually". But I find people come in with their opinions, fully formed, and it is often unlikely you are going to get some to change their mind on whether they like a movie or not. What matters to me is people being able to respect differences of opinions about movies. I don't mind some robust and friendly debate. And I don't mind being playful about it either. But I do at least want to feel that my reasons for liking or not liking something are being understood and not cast in the worst possible light by the person I am talking with.

I think one reason social media doesn't lend itself well to that is because it is often about point scoring. But if you stop worrying about points, and stop keeping score, I find that problem largely evaporates (at least for me it has).