So, longtime reader, first-time writer, especially since you're writing on a subject that I'm somewhat well-versed in. There are a few issues at work specifically within critical "fealty" to these movements, only some of which that the critics themselves are responsible for. To begin with a concession: it absolutely runs through one's he…
So, longtime reader, first-time writer, especially since you're writing on a subject that I'm somewhat well-versed in. There are a few issues at work specifically within critical "fealty" to these movements, only some of which that the critics themselves are responsible for. To begin with a concession: it absolutely runs through one's head when you write a negative review of a fandom property if you'll need to call the sheriff/police department so they don't shoot your dog whenever you get swatted by a person obsessed with, I don't know, "He-Man." I had a crazy media pile-on occur after I happened to be among the first published reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for a major franchise film directed by a shoe magnate's kid, to the point that people sought out my personal Facebook page to harass me, while yelling that this was the "perfect starting point for a new franchise," and even the fucking Oregonian went after my ass, which was funny as hell. but also pretty intimidating.
But I think the critical "consensus" that you've identified here is less firm than you might think, specifically because of Rotten Tomatoes. Alongside the star rating -- an attempt to quantify the whole of a subjective film analysis into an easy-to-digest categorization -- Rotten Tomatoes has had a unique effect on creating the impression of conformity. Click on any review on that page that has a less-than-hyperbolic title, and you'll often find an incredibly mixed rationale in the review, where because one praised a single element of a film's design or something above others than quantifies it as a "positive." Critics have the option to choose their own blurbs, but most (and myself -- who has time for that shit good god) just let RT do it. So you'll occasionally run across something you genuinely thought was a pan being represented as an endorsement on the site as an endorsement, especially if you don't use a star/numerical rating system, much like I do. So most of those Disney picks above are essentially "Gentlemen's 70s," which don't stem from genuine enthusiasm but aggregate flattening.
Second, as outlined above, as much as you'd like to hit on negative engagement and reap those hate clicks, the problem with doing that stuff is that you aren't really adding anything to a discussion by doing so and therefore nobody cares. There will always be those looking to counterjerk -- just look for "capeshit" on any social media site and you'll find them -- but the problem is that fans are engaging in *massive* amounts of cultural criticism and are often quite media literate, even if they lack the academic terms to make that analysis worthy of respect from elite corners. Telling them that their corporate shit sucks like you're some wise clove-cigarette smoking sage *does not* work if you're trying to engage these readers or to help them change their minds, who make up a lot of your audience -- you're right in that the death of the specialty publication has closed doors and required a whole lot of disinterested people to broaden their horizons, but at the exact same time, it's opened a window for readers. It doesn't mean you, the critic, have to accept the status quo of superhero trash week in and week out, but generally being open helps steer people to films they otherwise wouldn't consider, especially as the speed of culture accelerates.
There's an engagement-driven tendency to declare each particular film du jour the greatest thing that has ever landed in cinemas or the absolute worst thing ever (and god help you if you don't see either, because you won't be able to circlejerk with the rest of the cool kids or join in a dunk contest with the cool kids) and that, ultimately, works in the studios' interest. You're still watching the pablum, regardless of whether or not you've got enthusiasm or hate in your heart, and their goals are still the driving force of these projects, no matter how dressed up they are in artistic clothing. Yet the best critical movements -- which often inspire filmmaking movements in their own right -- come from the reevaluation of old trends and the discovery of the art present in the disposable, regardless of what bullshit is at the top of the pops. So, to contrast: I think critical engagement with these films are a necessity, and trying to enter a sphere in which the most cynical bullshit (IE "Space Jam") is worthy of analysis and discussion is a worthwhile endeavor, especially if you can have fun with it.
Also, I'd go on to suggest the reason that "Twilight" receives the hatred it does currently is because it's associated with three things: religiosity, poverty, and girlhood -- each a source of embarrassment for the liberal commentariat -- none of which taint things like "Harry Potter," provided you've discarded everything Rowling wrote or said after, say, 2007, or don't mind your wizards pissing and shitting on the floor in your personal head canon.
You're speaking wisdom about lots of people being media literate but lacking the *academic* language to Express Deep Thoughts. The CRT insanity is a great example. Plenty of people (not the bad faith idiots who don't want "white kids to feel bad") feel like something's off, but they haven't taken a college course on theory and criticism, so anyone who HAS can talk a circle around them then dunk directly into it.
And with that...Everybody get up it's time to slam now. We got a real jam goin' down...
So, longtime reader, first-time writer, especially since you're writing on a subject that I'm somewhat well-versed in. There are a few issues at work specifically within critical "fealty" to these movements, only some of which that the critics themselves are responsible for. To begin with a concession: it absolutely runs through one's head when you write a negative review of a fandom property if you'll need to call the sheriff/police department so they don't shoot your dog whenever you get swatted by a person obsessed with, I don't know, "He-Man." I had a crazy media pile-on occur after I happened to be among the first published reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for a major franchise film directed by a shoe magnate's kid, to the point that people sought out my personal Facebook page to harass me, while yelling that this was the "perfect starting point for a new franchise," and even the fucking Oregonian went after my ass, which was funny as hell. but also pretty intimidating.
But I think the critical "consensus" that you've identified here is less firm than you might think, specifically because of Rotten Tomatoes. Alongside the star rating -- an attempt to quantify the whole of a subjective film analysis into an easy-to-digest categorization -- Rotten Tomatoes has had a unique effect on creating the impression of conformity. Click on any review on that page that has a less-than-hyperbolic title, and you'll often find an incredibly mixed rationale in the review, where because one praised a single element of a film's design or something above others than quantifies it as a "positive." Critics have the option to choose their own blurbs, but most (and myself -- who has time for that shit good god) just let RT do it. So you'll occasionally run across something you genuinely thought was a pan being represented as an endorsement on the site as an endorsement, especially if you don't use a star/numerical rating system, much like I do. So most of those Disney picks above are essentially "Gentlemen's 70s," which don't stem from genuine enthusiasm but aggregate flattening.
Second, as outlined above, as much as you'd like to hit on negative engagement and reap those hate clicks, the problem with doing that stuff is that you aren't really adding anything to a discussion by doing so and therefore nobody cares. There will always be those looking to counterjerk -- just look for "capeshit" on any social media site and you'll find them -- but the problem is that fans are engaging in *massive* amounts of cultural criticism and are often quite media literate, even if they lack the academic terms to make that analysis worthy of respect from elite corners. Telling them that their corporate shit sucks like you're some wise clove-cigarette smoking sage *does not* work if you're trying to engage these readers or to help them change their minds, who make up a lot of your audience -- you're right in that the death of the specialty publication has closed doors and required a whole lot of disinterested people to broaden their horizons, but at the exact same time, it's opened a window for readers. It doesn't mean you, the critic, have to accept the status quo of superhero trash week in and week out, but generally being open helps steer people to films they otherwise wouldn't consider, especially as the speed of culture accelerates.
There's an engagement-driven tendency to declare each particular film du jour the greatest thing that has ever landed in cinemas or the absolute worst thing ever (and god help you if you don't see either, because you won't be able to circlejerk with the rest of the cool kids or join in a dunk contest with the cool kids) and that, ultimately, works in the studios' interest. You're still watching the pablum, regardless of whether or not you've got enthusiasm or hate in your heart, and their goals are still the driving force of these projects, no matter how dressed up they are in artistic clothing. Yet the best critical movements -- which often inspire filmmaking movements in their own right -- come from the reevaluation of old trends and the discovery of the art present in the disposable, regardless of what bullshit is at the top of the pops. So, to contrast: I think critical engagement with these films are a necessity, and trying to enter a sphere in which the most cynical bullshit (IE "Space Jam") is worthy of analysis and discussion is a worthwhile endeavor, especially if you can have fun with it.
Also, I'd go on to suggest the reason that "Twilight" receives the hatred it does currently is because it's associated with three things: religiosity, poverty, and girlhood -- each a source of embarrassment for the liberal commentariat -- none of which taint things like "Harry Potter," provided you've discarded everything Rowling wrote or said after, say, 2007, or don't mind your wizards pissing and shitting on the floor in your personal head canon.
Anyway, thank you for the food for thought.
Great insight, thank you!
You're speaking wisdom about lots of people being media literate but lacking the *academic* language to Express Deep Thoughts. The CRT insanity is a great example. Plenty of people (not the bad faith idiots who don't want "white kids to feel bad") feel like something's off, but they haven't taken a college course on theory and criticism, so anyone who HAS can talk a circle around them then dunk directly into it.
And with that...Everybody get up it's time to slam now. We got a real jam goin' down...