For me the old would include 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Deliverance, The Sixth Sense and The Green Mile. The new would include Blade Runner 2049, I’m Thinking Of Ending Things, Get Out and two short Star Wars films: Premonition and Star Wars Origins. Thank you, Tom, for this most thought-provoking video on your channel. 👍🏻
The Ascent and Portrait of Jason. The Ascent begins as a fairly traditional war film, but it develops into a profoundly moving spiritual allegory. Masterful direction and sound design. Portrait of Jason is probably one of the most psychologically complex character studies I've ever seen rendered on film. It's no surprise Ingmar Bergman rates it as highly as he does. Thank you for your work.
yeah, it's a major western film that when viewed from the time it was released, it wasn't an "indie pretentious film". It's more akin to a mainstream film back then
It's a non-Disney, non-superhero film and for a lot of people now, that means it IS pretentious and high brow and snobby and other dismissive terms meaning "you shouldn't watch it/have watched it".
Time is the only resource. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
Nooooo!!!! but for real it's like.. 25 years old... That'd be like a commentator in 1993 referencing a movie from 1968 man! To me it blows my mind that 2 and 1/2 decades have passed since it released. Makes my brain hurt.
Yup. Saw it a couple of months ago at my local cinema as a 25th anniversary screening. Still love it as much now as when I saw it as a 19 year old. Also saw Network at a screening last night. Both have a lot to say about trusting the narrative and capitalism and were both mainstream movies. But stick in my mind and make me think.
@@hitandruncommentor Yup, I call it pretentiousness. Put subtitles on when you watch a movie like Dune or the latest bladerunner. They literally don't make any sense once you READ the dialogue. It's just a load of big complicated words chucked together, with the clear intent of sounding smart, but it's absolute mush. I think our standards of "high cinema" have been seriously dropped. Pretentious, but meaningless dialogue, makes a 'good' movie these days apparently.
@@magicbuns4868villeneuve has said something like that he would prefer movies didn’t even have dialogue at all. he’s a visual guy, and those are visually fantastic films, but they are intellectually / verbally totally underbaked (natural consequence of the director most basically only caring about how they look)
its not just cinema. if you try and have in depth conversation about any art form people automatically think you're pretentious. it makes me very slow to talk about stuff i'm really interested in cos people will think i'm weird.
Like many people who appreciate this channel, I'm into all kinds of media. I read when I can, and consume audio books when i can't. In my early 20s, I came to the realization that just because I wasn't in school, did not mean I had to stop learning, even through experiences if need be. I've been classically trained in the kitchen, and it's what I did professionally for about a decade. I'm back in school and about to receive a degree. What I'm saying is I've learned so much, am still hungry for more, and am excited to share it when I can. Someone recently told me, "You'd get along with my cousin. You guys are into THINGS." As if the default is just nonengagment with anything that challenges.
I had a (not-too-close) friend make a drunk offhand comment about how I probably ruin dates because I "go off about some book or whatever." Mind you, he was making up this scenario based on how I banter with more distant friends -- and it made me very thankful I keep a barrier between him and anything about my love life. But I thought it was pretty rich coming from him considering he will derail any conversation to talk about marijuana laws for 30 minutes straight. We all have our pockets of interest.
Mmhm this scornful attitude towards passion is very pervasive and I feel like it's been getting worse in the last couple of years. All my fictional passions are dead because of this, not just the franchises but whole genres of cinema have died in the last 20 years. Sucks when the only art you want to gab about is so long dead people don't even know what it is. I'm only in my 20s!! I'm far too young for this to be happening to me, and yet here I am.
What's your favourite food? "Hmmm, a margherita pizza with nice bufala. Some nice olives and prosciutto on the side?" Why are you lying? Just tell us it's carrots and ranch with Chicken McNuggets?
@@kevincgrabb I'm still arguing meat lovers. I've had decent pizza, but typically when I eat I want it to actually be filling and have more nutrition than just carbs and a couple pieces of lettuce.
Passion for cinema is uncomplicated to me. I watch everything that interests me - be it mainstream, arthouse, old, new, considered "bad", considered "good." I don't look down on anything. I just bring my hope to enjoy what I'm about to watch.
This! This is how I watch everything. I just hope whatever it is I will enjoy it, that I'll be moved, and engaged. Lately I've been exploring Quiet Cinema (it's fascinating), while still enjoying the latest superhero and Horror movies!
Exactly. I watch anything that interest me. I watch good, bad, okay movies. Foreign language, animated... If it makes me curious I'll watch. I'm still guilty of Rotten Tomatoes letting me determine my viewing habits though because sometimes I want to watch a "truly" good film, but I've watched "truly" good films that are deemed "rotten". Surprised this video essay didnt bring up these aggregate sites and how movie studios specifically aim for high critic scores to shape audience perception.
Best way to view cinema and mainstream. This is an artistic medium. Say what you want about directors like Michael Bay there are technical talents that Bay has that others do not. Jane Champion has talents that Bay doesn't have. Glad that both are around.
The way I think about it is that a bunch of artists worked hard on every movie even if it's not that good. Movies are more interesting when I think about the decisions made to produce the film
Glad to see someone call out the commodification of relatability and the moralisation of taste. I run in poetry circles myself and it’s exactly the same thing. The end result is just people refusing to read empathetically, hating ambiguity and erasing expressions that they can’t project on.
Every circle begins with its end. Reflection is key. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
I find "hating ambiguity" to be so true. Even the people I love most often hate the films I love because I love a lot of films that have ambiguous characters, plot points, and conclusions. I just like that. I like a well-done "open for interpretation" character or story. But almost no one else does.
Here's the thing though: people by and large reject the "moralisation of taste". This stuff is failing the more aggressively it gets marketed. Art is, first and foremost, entertainment. Has always been, will always be. Fail to entertain and you'll be back to creating art as a hobby soon enough, because noone will pay you.
Oooo that opening made me mad. Yes I liked Star Wars and Iron Man, but one of the most impactful movies I saw as a kid was literally The Good The Bad and The Ugly. To pretend like that's some kind of fake snobby answer says more about those people than it does about me.
I went to a Star Wars film forum cycle, not only they were playing all six movies each saturday, but each sunday they played movies that influenced or were related to George Lucas in some way (Ben-Hur, Blade Runner, 2001: A Space Oddysey, Excalibur, The Good The Bad and The Ugly, and Apocalypse Now), growing up as a fan, I discovered so many wonderful movie classics due to my interest in researching what movies influenced my favorite directors such as George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, I even watched THX 1138 and American Graffiti, I wouldn't know Akira Kurosawa if it weren't for it.
The Good The Bad and the Ugly isn't even that highbrow like it's literally just a great action movie... but people are assuming because it's older it must be something inaccessible.
The funny thing is, when Star Wars was made you could call it an indie title, no studio wanted it, and it just happened to have its breakthrough. That's why I avoid the doomer takes about "art is going to shit". I'm sure previous generations said the same, for different reasons. And when art does change, as Cormac implies in the video, yes art is a reflection of society and of the times. We can all appreciate classical music today, but as a genre it's no longer as relevant as it once was, or produced at a similar capacity or even quality - and that's fine. There will always be a divide between art made for money and art made for expression, and the eventual convergence of ideas that manage to do both and create new genres and classics. Art will be fine, and we already have classics of our time that will join the list of greats in 100 years, just like there were plenty of forgettable music, movies, books, paintings made in the past.
@@voidgodsi agree with all of this. i’m passionately opposed to the rampant sterilisation and commercialisation of artistic expression. whenever i can i encourage people to expand their horizons and be truly curious. as a creator myself i am always calling out, and pushing back against, the smothering influence corporatism has on what gets made. but what i don’t do is say ‘art is doomed’. that’s not helpful. people don’t respond to prophecies of doom with positive, productive action. they respond with resignation and pessimism. it makes them less curious, less motivated to explore. and i just don’t believe it’s true. especially the narrative of art and art appreciation ‘going downhill’ and that society is getting dumber. i don’t have patience for that kind of ‘idiocracy’ portrayal of the average person, and for the cynical solipsism it seems to inspire in those who view themselves as intellectuals. we don’t have the same memory for the bad movies that came out in the 80s, or the 60s, or the 40s. the classics have risen to the surface since then, and canonised. we minimise the corporate aspects of their productions because those movies managed to transcend them. plus, we’re not from the 1940s, so we don’t feel pandered to by many of the filmmaking and writing decisions that were pandering to audiences of that era. i see reason to be thoughtful, wary, vigilant, critical. i see stuff we need to push back against. but i don’t see reason to be hopeless. i hope that we, who believe in the benefits of expanding one’s horizons and cinematic palette, can encourage this in others without coming off as condescending or judgemental. and i hope that we, too, are careful to examine our preconceived notions going into a film, whatever genre it might be, whenever it was made, and by whom.
@@joa1401exactly, great points, we must also remain cautious about the self-indulge of thinking our way of appreciating things is the most intelectually relevant way. People can have mentally taxing jobs and enjoy stupid movies, or the opposite, or both at the same time, there is no right or wrong way to enjoy art, and if you like something there will always be someone, somewhere else that enjoy the same things and then you can create and share appreciation about something between yourselves, without expecting the general audience to follow through - that is always how art worked, by it's nature. As for "negativity makes people less curious", that couldn't be more true.
By mocking foreign films, arthouse, and older movies, all these TikTokers are showing is that they have very narrow taste. People with good taste enjoy a large variety of art.
What baffles me is how those TikTokers act like "I enjoy fun movies" is some sort of controversial hot take they need to defend. Blockbusters have $100+ million advertising campaigns and are made to appeal to as wide a market as possible, while the "foreign-sounding" movies they're mocking are lucky to have an audience at all. Deadpool 3, for example, is being shoved down my throat before it's even released, yet these people act like it's in a disadvantaged position. I'm a die hard Nolan and Villenueve fan, but I don't go around acting like the existence of lower budget, avant garde movies is somehow a threat to theirs.
@@NadiaSeesIt well, the way they phrase their frustration create a different reaction. The way The Tiktokers said is instead more similar to the snobbish elitist that they hate on. The tiktokers act as if the "fun" and blockbuster movies are the only ones worth watching. One of the tiktoker clearly mock someone who enjoys 2001, I need to ask why? If the person genuinely enjoys 2001, then what's the problem? Why is she so insistent in mocking someone's favorite film when that person likes it not to be seen as an elitist?
I'm a fellow huge Nolan fan and most people still acknowledge batman begins, dark knight, interstellar, and inception were amazing films. Memento is too odd duck, complex, confusing, and makes you have to analyze and think about things so npc or normies won't get it or like it...but I love it.
Not to get specifically political, but I do see people blanket claiming things like “People of X political leaning do not make good art”, and then you ask what have they watched that made them reach that conclusion and it is either they have watched nothing or have watched the most extreme art made by that position. It is fine if gore or animal cruelty makes you uncomfortable and you avoid movies that have these things, but I believe it is unhealthy if just different ideas you disagree make you uncomfortable enough to not even engage with them. It would be better to try to understand them in art rather than in the ballot box, when discussion may be long over.
...wait, I'm confused. Does that include LSOO? Cause I feel like LSOO is preaching that idea and being open about it. I think by saying that "those who are advocating this" is like, an obfuscation and projecting to a vague type of other person who exists.
TOLERANCE is not always a two-way street, nor should it be. Asking intolerant people to be more tolerant (and face their discomfort) doesn't mean we, in return, have to tolerate their intolerance.
“High concept” means easy to explain quickly, and it’s used as a shorthand for a plot that’s immediately compelling and marketable without much explanation. I think you mean “complex” or even “low concept.”
@@jerryachtermann6399 ya, I think a lot of people would understand the use better in computer programming terms; when you line it up with the idea of low level programming, versus high level programming.
Yes because something like the "Light house" strikes you personally doesn't it? I mean, I understand that it has a subtext of mental illness born from isolation and what people can do in extreme situations but that took me, literally, a bit of scouring to research. And I don't even think the Lighthouse is up to my speed, because I watch shit like Fast and the Furious or Triple fucking X because they're FUN. Most of these people don't bother to even do as much, they probably watch an essay like this one and get on with it.
I've fully immersed myself in "made me smile" content she described. Id then watch more thought provoking content with lots of consideration gone into the writing and directing and found myself more emotionally enriched. The difference? I use my imagination a lot more with enriching story telling. I don't like how that is categorized as pretentious. These people need to exercise their imagination.
You are pretentious bc you act that way. IDGAFF what you watch or don’t watch. Just stop telling ppl what to see or attacking them bc of what they like. My list of favorite films has changed in some ways than when I was a kid. Some films kept their position or were elevated and others were gone entirely. No one is telling you what to enjoy or not enjoy. You are doing that to yourself bc you care more about what they think of you than you think of yourself.
Coming from someone who is in their mid twenties and loves cinema, one of the biggest issues I’ve had lately is people of my generation usually 15 to 25 years old are spending more and more time on social media for entertainment instead of watching cinema or reading books. And spending some time on social media isn’t bad, but imo when that’s mostly all you consume you’re training your brain to only take in short form content and you’re not challenging yourself. This leads to lazier and lazier behavior and shorter attention spans. And that just makes me sad.
Entertainment has been shifting from what was available to exchange information such as television and cinema also radio to internet and social media which is in our phone. Entertainment has changed into short-form, and being automatically choosing what is favorable for us because of our clicks and engagement thanks to algorithm. It has never been more passive for us to interact with such entertainment and it has changed from actively seeking into passively receiving it.
Content algorithms need to be regulated in the same way that gambling, nicotine, and alcohol were. Shortened attention spans, always chasing the next "high," low tolerance for displeasure...these are clear signs of addiction and need to be treated as such.
I will never be ashamed of saying that most of my favorite movies are movies from Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, Miyazaki, Lumet, Coppola, Fellini, Lynch and Scorsese. Someone may say to me I'm an elitist snob, but so be it. Those movies are timeless and deeply important to me. It's not me being a snob and looking down on others who watch mainstream films, It's just what I enjoy the most, what I genuinely feel that those films are so great. On the other hand, I also like some mainstream films like John Wick, The Batman, etc. Heck, I love Dragon Ball and that is mainstream as hell. What I'm frustrated is some people really look down on others who like "art" films, just let them enjoy things they like
I think you're really misinterpreting what they were saying. I believe there are many people who say only arthouse movies are worthwhile and these are the incredibly annoying people the videos at the beginning were referring to
@@NadiaSeesIt I believe the opposite is also true; that there are many people who mock others who enjoy arthouse movies. One of the footage in the intro of this video clearly mock a person who enjoys The Good, The Bad and The Ugly even though that movie is not even an arthouse. It's a mainstream film which came out in 1966 yet it is still a mainstream film through and through. Annoying people exist on both sides. But mocking people who enjoy things because they genuinely enjoy it, not just to be an elitist snob is wrong.
@@NadiaSeesItThere's actually more people who mock those "art house" kinda films. In real life social circles i mean. Most film elitist are mainly online. I've met more people who think I'm pretentious, just for talking passionately about a movie (not even in an exaggerated way) only for someone to tell me "it's just entertainment bro, it's not that deep" I've met more of those people than the "film elitist" you mention
@@samuel.jpg.1080p Good for you with Tarkovsky, I was watching stalker and I stop watching after 40 minutes, maybe he's not my cup of tea, lol, I love Lumet, Lang and Kubrick though
I've spent a lot of time watching video essays, and it's shockingly rare - maybe just because of the recommender or my own habits - that a video essay exposes me to a new way of thinking. Yours do that pretty consistently. You write these like you actually want people to sit and reflect on them, not just to passively consume something they already agree with in a slick audiovisual format. In these respects, I get out of your videos what I like getting out of written essays. Keep up the good work!
Reflection is most definitely both key and lock. I wish that humanity participated in it far more often. Unfortunately, it *does* require training, insight, work, silence, etc. Most are far too busy with the hustle and bustle of "busy-ness" to stop and think for even 3-6 meager moments. Must give us pause. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
so true! Only five minutes into the video and I was like, shit this is some really insightful stuff he's saying. So I opened my notes app and wrote down some things that resonated and gave me more understanding of the issue. Before I realized, I was already jotting down reflections of my own, making connections with other stuff I had been thinking about before, etc. That's what a good (video) essay does. Really appreciate this channel!
You've nailed it. When I see Tik Tok's talking about enjoying "fun" movies over black and white arthouse films, I wonder why they think so little of movies they find fun. Look at most of Spielberg's movies; they are pop culture juggernauts, but also revolutionized the industry and have a lot to say.
I try to strike a balance and "enjoy" everything from anime, to art house, to pop culture and vintage. For me there's value in all of it. Am I really in the minority on that?
It is also looks over the thousands of comedies made in black and white, Charlie Chaplin existed. Since cinema has existed, people have wanted to have fun and explore deep ideas, sometimes at the same time, shocking.
@@lkeke35 IKR like my top 20 favorite picks are a bit all over the place going from popular films like Planet Terror, Beetlejuice, The Elephant Man, Total Recall and Alien but also more culty/lesser known stuff like Mr. Nobody, Johnny Got His Gun, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Phantom of the Paradise and Balada Triste De Trompeta (aka The Last Circus). Artsy French films can also be a lot of fun to watch, Delicatessen and Playtime are almost like live-action cartoons. I know people hate snobs, but I feel like snobs would at least appreciate that I have an open mind and want to check out deep cut films, while those Tik Tokers would have a "DOES NOT COMPUTE" meltdown because I dare love both commercial and "artsier" stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if by their standards The Elephant Man (*GASP!* Black and white!! Nooo!!!) and Alien are too "brainy and boring" if 2001 (which I love and is included in my top 20) and Good The Bad and the Ugly are "pretentious".
You've hit upon something here. Blockbusters and arty films don't have to be mutually exclusive. I think a lot of the filmmaking of studio big releases of late is falling victim to this, and we (the audience, review culture) seem shocked, over and over, when something popular actually tries to have its own voice. I think a recent example is the surprise people had over the recent Shogun TV series. The surprise being that they could not predict what is usually predictable in these types of stories. Save the Cat has ruined audiences, to the point that NOT adhering to its advice is now compelling storytelling because we are so used to where the character and plot beats are supposed to pop up.
I have a well-meaning friend who keeps throwing away drafts of their novel because they're uncomfortable with the antagonist being too "problematic." Honestly I always kind of thought that was the point
I remember writing to my younger followers on Tumblr that it was okay to watch and even like "problematic" characters. That liking villains doesn't say anything about one's own identity. I don't think I was wrong in saying that. I've "liked" plenty of villains in my 5 decades of living, and didn't consider that it said anything about what kind of person I am or wanted to be.
@@lkeke35 Bingo. One of my all-time favorite characters is V.M. Varga from season three of Fargo. Without getting into spoilers, he is an absolutely vile and reprehensible excuse for a human being, yet it's impossible to take your eyes off of him whenever he's on screen, he steals practically every scene he's in, and he is endlessly quotable (a big aspect of what makes him so memorable is the phenomenal performance of David Thewlis). But on the flip side, in reality I couldn't be less like that character. I'm extremely empathetic towards others, money and power aren't my top priorities, I believe in helping those in need, etc. Being a fan of a _fictional_ villainous character is in no way indicative of who you are or what you're like as a person. I'm also a fan of Michael Myers and the original Halloween, yet I have zero desire to actually hurt or kill anyone or see anyone actually get hurt or killed by a mask-wearing maniac who's wielding a knife. Anyone who jumps to the conclusion that you "must be a bad person" simply because you enjoy a villainous character in a fictional work is an absolute idiot who isn't worth your time.
That’s where you can make very interesting villains, recently my brother got me to watch JJK and I found myself loving the disaster curses Jogo and Mahito. Jogo despite little screen time was extremely interesting with his philosophy and showing how his faction thinks and want in life. Mahito despite all the hate he gets is the sole reason why I love the character, like what your friend sees as bad in an antagonist I see it as the best thing you can do to the character when writing them which is precisely what makes Mahito a good villain.
Every circle begins with its end. Reflection is key. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
The barbie doll was a surprise hit back in the late 50s. Because marketers assumed that little girls wanted dolls that were basically just them, little girls. but , i think, it turned out that little girls had just as much passion and excitement for imagining, perhaps fantasizing, and acting out what it would be like to be a fully developed and flourishing adult, being the best version of their adult self, and maybe, lol, also having it all (a career and a family). But I guess it is true that the barbie was and always meant to be the “literally me”.
You realize that the Barbie creator just stole the doll (from a German doll) and copied her one to one? The original manufacturer had no idea this was going in and Mattel later bought the original doll so they wouldn't get sued. Barbie has no message except that theft is alright
It's much more enjoyable to relate to a character who's actually living the life you don't have. Tyler Durden's quote about why Narrator came up with him suites here well.
@@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer Some people do, because this subversion of reality and context is intentionally and purposely misleading. We live in a world of smoke and mirrors, it's enlightening to peek behind the curtains on the stage to see the faces of the frauds that play center on the stage.
I thought it was weird to hear about people relating to Joker in a positive way. For me he was relatable, but I took that as a _warning,_ not as a point of pride. The power of the movie for me was to show a part of myself that I'm uncomfortable with, and motivate me to find healthy ways to integrate it. If cautionary tales aren't relatable, they're not doing their job!
Probably because that’s the point, a lot of people feel trapped and when the only thing friend groups, family, society, or whatever social groups you’re a part of say to deal with it or be shamed until you do makes people like Joker very appealing because in a way he’s free unlike the people that relate to him.
@@def3ndr887 Sure we all feel that way more or less, but given humanity's history of revolutions, schisms, and movements, this is hardly some unique feature of the current era. "Joker" isn't just about a figure with relatable aspects, it's a full character that responds to that situation in a particular way and the movie explores that. Don't forget that this is the birth story of a really bad guy. It's not a guide for us to follow.
@@spejic1 that’s what makes this era disturbing and pushes the question of whether our society is doing enough to alleviate the majority of plights its people must endure, and if not will they learn or will a revolt be the only way to solve it.
It is a warning, but changing yourself still isn't the point in my not so humble opinion. A broken man was allowed to do horrible things because of a horrible system. Even if you think I'm wrong, what is one to do when their act of self-defense (being repeatedly kicked on the ground is easily deadly btw) brought on by helping another is portrayed as a monstrous act?
My father liked westerns, a lot. When we were growing up, he and I (and sometimes my mom and/or sister) would sit together and watch Stagecoach, or True Grit, or High Plains Drifter. The last thing we ever did together, as he lay on his deathbed, was watch The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Just... the best. Not very relatable, though...
I have a similar relationship with my Great Uncle, he grew up with westerns, I went to his house, sat and watch whatever there were playing in Fox Classics, today he mostly watches action movies or some old western from 60 or 70 years ago.
Ah yes, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. I love the music composition, close-ups of characters and the chemistry both Blondie and Tuco has with one another although they’re frenemies in a sense, since they’re constantly stabbing each other’s backs
Is it so hard for people in those tiktoks to believe that people actually do enjoy the "pretentious cinema with foreign-sounding names" because they think they are good movies? I hate that dismissive attitude so much! Flames on the side of my face!
snobs definitely exist. I've known a few pseudos who simply can't enjoy normal things, who always have to be 'different' because they think that liking popular stuff is beneath them. but on the other side are people who only consume the latest mainstream trend that is spoonfed to them every month. Their entire existence revolves around consuming cheap, bland, commercialised 'content' There has to be balance. We must find a world somewhere between reddit and tiktok.
These people have been around the whole time. They just didn't have a virtually free way of spewing their mental diarrhea to millions of people at a time. I grew up in the 80s and 90s and at video rental stores 90% of people wanted whatever came out that week in the New Arrivals section. The thousands of VHS tapes in the middle of the store were almost always available because a small minority of people cared to rent anything old or classic.
Ouch, that first video clip hurt. Yes, actually 2001 is my favorite movie. I've watched it dozens of times. I know everything about it, it is a true masterpiece.
Yea I mean they're classics that millions love for a reason far beyond just being fashionable, they're excellently made films!! Ofc they're going to pop up more often. I'm more annoyed by the commentator's take on it, then people typically listing big time classics. Like does he want a world where everyone says Uhh "Primer", "La Haine", Rocky Horror" "Mulholland Drive" All of which are still cult classics by any metric except perhaps Primer. It's just a dumb perspective and has no understanding of probability
I've never seen it because it is such a part of the zeitgeist that going back now and watching it seems pointless. I'm sure others feel the same way about Casablanca, but I don't think you can be a man without understanding Rick's dilemma.
I think it also provides an insight into modern society's psychological age. Like, my parents told me that they have memories of teenagers meeting up in groups to see Rain Man when it came out, and that they can't even imagine something like that happening now. And to be clear, they're not just dismissing it as "Oh, kids these days bad." They have said, and I agree, that if you've been sold nothing but empty superhero and transformers movies your whole life, then that's obviously going to affect your development. And I think we're seeing the effects of that nowadays.
I remember a documentary years ago that examined how an over-abundance of choice paralysed decision-making. They did it with selling jams. In one version there were 50 different jam varieties; customers were so overwhelmed with choice that they didn't buy anything. As soon as they cut it to five choices, everyone bought it.
I didn't see the documentary you're talking about but I clearly remember seeing these statistics. It works for any streaming platform (that's why some end up scrolling for half an hour, and sometimes regret the film they picked up because they think there were so many others movies that would have been better), for the clothing industries (we use to have not more than 5 type of pants to try let's say, now we have... I don't even know, in just one shop, there's dozens of them). We really need to change the way we consume things in general.
Nah, people are just too used to being disappointed, to being treated like children. Humans still desperately, in their core, desire to be wowed, to be in awe, inspired, shaken, moved.
@@JohnHolmes3.0 My favorite example is The Joker punching Red Skull after he realizes Skull is a Nazi. Cuz he's a villain, but he's an American God dammit.
@@yucol5661 The irony of this take is that this take itself shows a really flat view of what villains must be. There is no single formula for what makes a good villain. A good villain is exactly what the story needs it to be in order to justify the conflict. Many stories need a complex villain. Others need a pompous fool who uses and abuses with no redeeming qualities. Some movies need their villain to be a Lovecraftian abyss of evil/harm. Sauron and Joffery Baratheon are considered amazing villains and they were never explained or humanized. They just were, and that's exactly what their stories needed them to be.
What rekindled my passion for cinema is when I started collecting physical media again. When you are actively investing your time and money, you are more engaged in the product. There is also a much larger universe of films to explore with physical media, and that has led me to branch out way beyond my usual comfort zone with foreign films, independent filmmakers that i had no prior experience with, etc. When you mindlessly browse through streaming choices, it ends up being passive background noise.
Yes. There isn’t really a way to prove that you get more out of a film because you’ve bought it on physical media, but I believe that my engagement with the filmographies of my favorite directors is not superficial. There is inconvenience and persistence involved in getting their films on physical media. Jonathan Rosenbaum has a book called ‘Placing Movies’. You literally place physical copies of your movies in a space in your home, but I feel that the effort involved in gathering a collection is another aspect of mentally placing a filmmaker and the meaning of their work in relation to yourself. I can’t say that people who just stream or more likely pirate everything can’t equally effectively engage with and mentally inventory the content and meaning of the work of great filmmakers. Ultimately this topic leads to a meta-consideration of what are we looking to get out of watching movies anyway?
Sadly an impossible choice if you live in a thirdworld shithole. But I really love movies so I just pirate em and just enjoy. From any period or genre. I engage with respect and sincerity.
The crazy thing about the whole "liking obscure movies to be seem smart" is that it actually teaches you to appreciate what you like and dont like and forces you to explore movies you otherwise would've ignored and before you know it, you have found some new movies to like. It's a phase and Im glad I went through it otherwise I wouldn't have discovered François Truffaut and I love his movies. Ironically enough, his colleague, Godard, accused him of being too commercial and not pushing cinema further after Truffaut released Day For Night which by today's standards would be considered pretentious even though it is very much a soap opera drama albeit with some meta layers as the subject matter concerns the production of a film.
Society is transitioning. We are in the teenage years of the age of information. Change can be long, awkward, and ugly but it doesn't mean the world is ending.
I agree. Look at modernist (ie. from the school of modernism) architecture. Bleak. Look at music: soulless and digitized. Look at literature, either caked in identity politics or fluff. But I feel a Renaissance is on the way. Nowhere to go but up.
@christijanrobert1627 I really like what you said "a Renaissance is on the way". I've always been a pessimist about the futur (for the politics, the arts, the humankind, etc.), but with that little sentence, that made remind that the human species had been here for thousands of years, there's been a lot of different eras, and it wouldn't be a surprise that a new era, a new Renaissance, is coming in the next century. I'm hopeful that people will start realizing that corporations and politics don't care about us, but just the money we have in our pockets and will start to not care about them anymore.
@@jeannelagarde2489 Hope springs eternal. But yes, I firmly believe it. In Harold Bloom's book the Western Canon, a book that predicted much of the identity politics and tribal squabbling going on, he believes a new age of invention and inspiration is on the horizon. When the book was written in the late 90s, he mourned the academies in their bid to unseat Shakespeare for being 'a dead white European male'. Meanwhile, these days, people are becoming more aware of corporations trying to separate us from our money. I also think of a Simpson episode where the town is dealing with giant marketing mascots running amok. Lisa tells the people 'just don't look' at them (i.e. the more attention they gain, the stronger they become and the more harm they can do). I say the same with films that do not appeal to our humanity. Don't watch them.
i took my aunt and uncle to a screening of Dr Strangelove in the theatre. when the movie was over my aunt said it was one of the worst movies she’s ever seen in her entire life. i noticed about half way through it she gave up on the movie and started periodically checking her phone for the remainder of the movie. she said the scenes went on way longer than they should have and it was really stupid, that’s why she didn’t like it. i asked her what she thought of the production design, she said she didn’t see anything great about it. then she went on to ask what General Ripper and Mandrake’s characters had to do with the plot, she wasn’t paying attention, she then refused to believe that it’s one of my favourite films of all time (hence my screen name). it was such a frustrating night. she’s in her early 40’s btw.
What I hate is that people are unwilling to engage. Dislike it by all means, hate it by all means but atleast engage with the work and have genuine thoughtful reasoning. As soon as you name something "pretentious" as a favourite, they dont even want to engage with all the possible reasons you enjoy it and the places in which you find meaning in the work, which would consequently open them up to a broader perspective, it doesn't mean they have to like it once you explain. But having two opposing views is literally the only way can say they've looked at something wholeistically, which is a dying trait in the modern world.
WTF??? Dr. Strangelove is one of Kubrick's most accesible movies, maybe even more than 2001, the movie is not even that long or difficult to understand. But I get your frustration, one night I sat to watch it with my Mom, she got the context of when it was made, appreciated the photography and set design, just didn't thought it was funny, maybe if she watched it dubbed in spanish she would have laughed (we're latinos, american and british comedy is usually considered cold), it also happens that she isn't a fan of Peter Sellers (yes we watched The Pink Panther and I love it), nothing against George C. Scott tho, she likes him as Patton. Btw, if you're wondering, we have watched Kubrick's filmography together, her favorites are Barry Lyndon (she loves period dramas) and The Shining (saw it back when it came out).
@@lindamalote1719 really agree on this. You can criticize all you want but please engage with the work, watch it fully and form your opinions. It's so bizarre, it's as if a person goes to a restaurant which serve a certain dish and that person don't want to eat the dish but then they complain about the dish. Wtf
There's one rule I'm imposing myself at cinema and it's to never check my phone during the movie. For respect for the people behind the movie, for the spectators who don't want to see a flashing screen in the middle of the room, but also because I want to be able to say when I get out, I loved/liked/disliked/hated the movie. There's other rules I'm imposing myself at cinema, but the phone is a big no-no. And I will always hate people who take it out during a screening to check it all the time (I can accept one time or two, if the light is to a minimum).
@@jeannelagarde2489I have the same rule, especially for when I see something in theaters. I think it’s disrespectful to the people around me and the people who worked on the film. Also I might miss something if I tune out. It’s fine if people don’t want to watch something that challenges them in uncomfortable ways, but it is insane that they then act like everyone who does enjoy films like these are lying or trying too hard.
I think people are living isolated lives in front of screens all day. They’re craving human connection. A very basic human need. When basic needs aren’t met, man has little mental space for anything more complex. I’m guessing this relatability characteristic of current movies is a response to that. People want to feel less alone and if they see a character that they can project their own feelings on…the better. Complex characters would get in the way of that goal.
One term popping up in discussions around social media is "Main Character Syndrome," a form of narcissistic self-centeredness that people have where they almost seem to think of themselves as a main character is one of these movies, never getting seriously challenged and always succeeding. These people then get upset when the world doesn't align with their own heroes journey.
I absolutely hate it when people imply that other people only like a niche or demanding piece of art because it makes them appear smart or cultured. It’s just as bad as saying people only like a mainstream commercial piece of media because they are mindless and susceptible to pandering. No one is obligated to enjoy anything, regardless of critical, scholarly, or popular consensus. But to imply that someone is lying about their opinion for status or something smacks of arrogance and narrow mindedness. Those tiktokers at the start of the video are operating at the same level as the pretentious, elitist cinephiles they are complaining about. The only difference is that they are proud to lick the boots of major media corporations by consuming nothing but commercial cinema and demonizing those who don’t.
There's room to enjoy all of it. (I'm partial to films from the 70s.)When I review or analyze movies, I make no distinction between arthouse cinema and commercial projects. The criteria for me is: Did I enjoy it? Did it engage me? Was I moved? Entertained? And I always make a point to tell my followers that just because I liked something doesn't mean they have to. Just because I hated it doesn't mean they can't like it. (Even the worse film is someone's favorite somewhere. I've loved plenty of movies other people hated.) The idea that someone claims to like something just to impress other people is a truly bizarre concept to me.
Yeah the claim that people are only liking media to appear smart or cultured is just...not a thing that really exists. I honestly think it's an anti-intellectualism bent, because the assumption is that if you don't enjoy this piece of media; it's an attack on me. It's why I'd see basic film fans on tiktok slam against people's Top 4 Letterboxd for having a foreign film or the geeks who hate The BFI's "Sight and Sound Top Movies List" because it doesn't have a Pixar film or an MCU film. Maybe people...actually like those movies for a reason; but the internet rewards pessimism, outrage, and cynicism.
@@MayorOfEarth79 people mock others for wanting villains that are pure evil, unforgivable, irredeemable saying those villains are boring, lack depth, childish, cartoonish, one-note, soulless, only for kids; they have very infantalizing and condescending attitudes
Literally happening with booktok rn. You have an issue with intense corn and bad writing being sensationlaised and selling? You're a hater and a pretentious poc.
@@Seasonal-Shadow_4674Yes but when the trend is to glorify and identify with villains instead of having "I understand why some could go that way but it isn't a path that someone should follow" is simply insane.
It’s just so nice to have a nuanced, deep, intelligent, philosophical, and psychological exploration into movies and mind and culture. Thank you. I feel well fed by a nourishing and original meal.
The argument here is less than the sum of it's parts. I agree with Part 3 wholeheartedly but not with the idea that selling relatability is a new thing or that it's bad. Did we forget that the 90s and 2000s were the height of the romcom genre when 10-20 of them would come out every year with the same basic structure baked into some half-cocked conciet about falling in love with your best friend, your housekeeper, or the girl next door. Also, isn't the cinematic equivalent of empty calories what dominated the cineplex during that same time? Finally, films have also always been about moral righteousness, see: Dr. Strangelove or A Clockwork Orange or any of the 40+ movies about the Vietnam War.
And he forgets that Hollywood has always been an industry that makes what makes money. It's always been that way since Hollywood was born. I mean, the wizard of Oz isn't an ambiguous tale of the complexiiof the human being
@@adolfodominguez1857 absolutely! Challenging cinematic masterpieces like The Santa Clause, The Flintstones and Dumb and Dumber were among the highest grossing movies of 1994
@adolfodominguez1857 he didn't say films are a business, but rather, there has been a change in how we consume media in a way that has harmed our ability to perceive and discuss the artform.
Test it. Test if this is you or modern Hollywood cinema. Watch something from 60's. Or from different country. Father Goose was breakthrough from me. I would never thought I would watch romantic comedy with such interest. Rear Window made me feel cozy. Midnight Runners from Korea reminded me how I liked simple adventure movies with sprinkle of humor and action.
This is a challenging argument that I believe demands additonal debate. Barbie was comfort food, but there's plenty of comfort food in the 80s. People still showed up for a 3-hour biopic in Oppenheimer. The Boy and the Heron was a big opening for a slowly-moving fantasy. I don't feel Cinema is dead, it's just changing. I do think people are thirsty for challenging stories, but they're tough to find in a sea of data. I do watch videos like this to find gems like The Settlers.
Barbie was boring, silly in an unfunny manner, and its political messaging was mindless preaching (the fact anyone "related" to that speech just speaks to the abysmal state of our society in terms of any intellectual and emotional capacity). Oppenheimer was marketed like crazy and while the cinematography was good (though mostly the same cliche style that screams Oscar bait rather than actual love of the craft) it was also full of dumb shit like a needless sex scene, a failure to show the actual aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the impact the bomb had on the people it hit and the world at large, generally an over obsession with the person of Oppenheimer (or rather movie characterization which was mostly uninteresting) rather than his role in the world and an over obsession with the Manhattan project in the least interesting manner possible. It also did not seriously question any of the myths and narratives of WWII or the Cold War despite flirting with doing so.
I was looking for this comment. I agree that it’s a challenging argument and I don’t like how decisive the comments are. They claim to love cinema and then don’t bring anything but agreement to the table. This video has rubbed me the wrong way. I went in excited to hear the point being made because I love both comfort and cinematic media but now I’m struggling to finish it because every point that has been made has sparked some from of disagreement from me.
It all depends on who the comfort was for. I doubt Barbie was comfort for ultra conservatives. Same as how movies with sexist depictions of women from back in the day will not be comfort food for many women today while it could go over some other people's head completely. It really depends on the kind of group you belong to and what kind of person you are, lol. For me Oppenheimer was more comfort food than Barbie since I knew it was based on real events, it created a kind of "you know what's gonna happen/there will be no accidents happening in this particular scene" and what happens happens because it happened this way in real life, and because of being a huge physics nerd it was what I enjoyed and knew. With Barbie, I was more stressed out with the plot and engaged in a way that I wanted the characters to overcome the struggles between the genders, I really was curious what solution they'd choose. It was also something closer to real life for me, so the struggles actually felt very relatable at time and it got me thinking about our world and my own life, some views being challenged. The thing is, as long as we keep mentally challenging movies and feel good movies, or both of these qualities within one movie, nothing is wrong with these kinds of movies because you can always go and watch the other type. I think only one kind or only the other kind being produced would both kind of suck.
@@josecarlosmoreno9731 "Oppenheimer was marketed like crazy and while the cinematography was good (though mostly the same cliche style that screams Oscar bait rather than actual love of the craft) it was also full of dumb shit like a needless sex scene, a failure to show the actual aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the impact the bomb had on the people it hit and the world at large, generally an over obsession with the person of Oppenheimer (or rather movie characterization which was mostly uninteresting) rather than his role in the world and an over obsession with the Manhattan project in the least interesting manner possible. It also did not seriously question any of the myths and narratives of WWII or the Cold War despite flirting with doing so." That's because the film is called Oppenheimer, it's about Oppenheimer, it's not called "the atomic bomb that ended WWII and changed history" dumbass. It's every bit a character study as one of Nolan's earliest films like Memento.
I feel increasingly frustrated with contemporary cinema. Of course, there are exceptions in mainstream cinema, and there are many good things to find outside of it as well. But over time, I find myself retreating more and more to the past, in search of art and beauty, to the great classics and masters.
I think this collective discomfort around modern cinema can be attributed to the natural growing pains of studios adapting to cultural change: Older classics had protagonists and audiences that were mainly straight white males; therefore, the story didn't require the heavy exposition and thus the commodification of this demographic. Today, studios are willing to include marginalized identities BUT under the condition that they are commodified and thus made easily consumable by an audience that is still mainly straight, white, and male. Ambiguity and nuance in fiction can only be appreciated through narrative fluency and insight. Protagonists from marginalized groups in big budget studio films are made reductive because the average movie goer, frankly, see these groups in a reductive way and does not possess the cultural fluency and insight needed to appreciate the cultural nuances that have always existed within these groups.
@@binaryvoid0101 I think it’s not just a matter of gender or ethnicity. Fortunately today we have more diversity (although sometimes it’s fictitious and utterly hypocritical), but seeing it that way is very reductionist to understand the problem. That discourse is concerned exclusively with content as the only issue, leaving form simply as a shell. And in art, form is everything. I consider myself to be completely open to the narrative placing me in an ideologically unfamiliar place for the sake of art. I am an atheist, and the religiosity in Ordet moves me. I am straight, and most of my favorite romantic movies are queer. I consider myself politically left-leaning and enjoy the works of conservative right-wing authors like John Ford or Clint Eastwood. I am Latin American, and the sometimes exaggerated nationalism of American cinema doesn't bother me if it has an honest place in the narrative. And I could go on with many things that personally do not represent me at all… but for a moment, thanks to the power of art, they can reach me emotionally. The problem with much of today's cinema logic is that it ends up becoming just content, quick consumption, without room for reflection, metaphor, or confronting ideas we disagree with. It turns us into passive spectators instead of active and engaged participants in art.
Exemplary (yet unknown) creators abound, but they'd rarely be recognized because they're not rich, powerful, influential, popular, etc. That's just how society functions. Kathleen Kennedy and Bob Iger are considered to be Gods, but it isn't because they have ethics, creativity, insight, storytelling skills, or passion. Reflection is key. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
I find myself watching Turner Classic Movies more often & buying blu rays from boutique labels versus going to the theater & consuming stuff on streaming. The multiplex is not offering enough variety. As someone who interns at Film Threat, the fight against woke ideology is more about how it forces out those who’ve been in the industry (see the D-Files entry on veteran animators being pushed out of Disney) in favor of feeding an agenda that favors “diversity” for superficial PR. At the same time, the woke ideology lessens more nuanced stories in mainstream cinema in favor of hyping an overly self important message.
Your point about "neoliberal individualisation" felt like a breath of fresh air. You seem to know your history! A lot of people are unaware of the massive cultural shift that occured in the late 1970s to the point that they have so deeply internalized a hyper-individualist mindset. Every experience or act of consumption must be tailored to one's personal preferences/sensibilities, no matter how nonsensical doing so might be.
@TondersWonders I know.... It was meant more as an expression of the omnipresent of the government in F451. The big difference from 1984 is that they choose to have tv surrounding them all the time. It represents better our reality.
I think what's lacking most of all is the willing tot ake risks both by studios and by directors. A very similar thing is happening in the gaming world, where studios and devs just re-release over and over the same games or very similar games that are empty copies of what vame before because it worked, and they don't want to take risks with new ideas and they try to appeal to the widest possible audience, which can't give a proper deep story and mechanics.
2001 A Space Odyssey is a seminal movie. It doesn't flow the way we expect entertainment to flow in this day and age, but it was an excellently written story incorporating what was known at the time about what the realities of living in space would be like. It has influenced our culture in so many ways as well, from how it's plot has inspired countless other sci-fi movies such as Interstellar, to the way it presented AI. I genuinely don't understand how someone could sit and watch that movie and not be interested in it. It is still the best space movie. These are the same people that probably thought Blade Runner 2049 was boring... The Avengers super hero movie Instagram and tik tok age of entertainment has completely ruined so much big budget entertainment. It's concerning, because I think big budget movies with some kind of subtle underlying artwork, and metaphor like Titanic, Blade Runner (old or new version), 2001 A Space Odyssey, even Oppenheimer, are really important for cultural development. People spending more and more of their entertainment hours on mindless cheap thrills makes our civilization dumber and less thoughtful of other people's experiences.
I can't say that I cared for 2001 A Space Odyssey when I saw it originally on the big screen. I found 2001 A Space Odyssey visually stunning and engaging, however it did not capture my fancy as I did not understand the story at all. Only after I read both Arthur C. Clarke's short story, "The Sentinel" and the book, which I enjoyed immensely, did the movie, which I re-watched, finally make sense. Ever since that experience 40+ years ago, I have recommended to anyone interested in watching 2001, to read the book first.
The movie never appealed to me and I didn't understand why until I read the book. Stanley Kubrick's movies tend to be quite pessimistic which doesn't fit with the fantastic ideas that Arthur C. Clarke is proposing.
@@jasonkatz4430 "Late state capitalism" doesn't mean the state of capitalism near the end of its existence, like (say) Marx predicted. It means the modern unmockable, unsatirizable form of capitalism that has perfected itself. It will always be late stage capitalism. Forever.
@@jasonkatz4430 Most of the people who use that phrase haven't even read the books it's from or understand the concept. Hell, the vast majority of people who criticize capitalism don't understand what capitalism is (because to do so they would have to turn against the parts of capitalism they like, being among the more privileged sections of the imperial core). However, the end of capitalism is currently a possibility, but the next stage won't be socialism/communism, it'll be a new economic form that has yet to be understood or studied but is apparent in its current creation. It'll be some type of industrial manorialism and feudalism politically, where firms take on the role of political units like counties, duchies, and kingdoms used to, being simply administrative partitions that became independent after the fall of Western Rome. Whereas before land was the main resource to be inherited and taxed, in the future it will include industries, natural resources, and possibly even segments of the labor pool. The main political actors then will once again be the richest families (rather than states and political parties). The ignorant might still call it capitalism for a long time, but if markets, wage labor and profits are no longer the main economic drivers because all markets have been monopolized, wage labor is secondary to welfare, and profits are less important than market share, it's not actually capitalism anymore.
@@spejic1 I like your definition better than this one in a recent article by Erika Rasure: "The term "late-stage capitalism" got its name from the idea that the current phase of capitalism is the final, often most exploitative and unsustainable, stage before a significant change or collapse."
@@unfgreen It's not a stage, it's simply corruption. Capitalism works because of competition, but when pseudo-monopolies start to form, the competition is over. With a little bit of regulation, as seen in Europe, it functions just fine.
I think more and more people have truly lost the ability to objectively analyze media based on its merits and rather go with their emotional reaction on weather it is 'good' or 'bad' when in reality they are just commenting on weather or not the movie as 'for them' or not. There are plenty of media I personally like and will defend form undo criticism while being able to concede where it might have failed as a project over all. There are also plenty of films that I don't like but am able to separate myself from my personal reaction in order to praise it while being able to articulate what I did not like about it. Many people these days rather then having a civil discussion will just say 'it's not that deep' or 'you don't get it' when faced with Good Faith criticism which greatly saddens me because for me it's speaks to a shallow engagement with the work as a whole.
I think a missing part in this is sheer exhaustion. Things I want to engage with, but it will require full concentration, which I don't have the energy to do (cue the number of hours worked compared to previous generations). The effect is rather much sleepwalking, where only surface level understanding or overt themes makes it past the haze. Hence critiques will only be impressions at best. Generation Sleep.
Trying to find objective quality in art is missing the point of art. I think that can also create a culture where pretty rubbish movies get praise for being important and incredibly well crafted movies gets dismissed as "dumb fun". Just don't dismiss everything that's not up your alley as too pretentious really believe that they enjoy the things they enjoy.
@@PauLtus_B I disagree that there is no way to objectively analyze a work. I can disagree with a theme or message of a work while still being able to comment on how that theme was conveyed or explored and weather or not structural elements of the story helped or hindered how it conveyed certain elements, regardless of if it spoke to me on a personal level. I also firmly believe that people can enjoy what they want I just think they ought to be able to explain why (which can be 'trivial' or personal and that's ok!), without encouraging them to turn their brains off for the sake of just being entertained. (as an aside I think alot of that reaction can come from trying to explain to people who don't understand or don't want to understand our perspective which can be extremely frustrating but I think we do ourselves a massive disservice to give up on the project of analysis and self-refection as a whole.)
@@MyName-rx4jd "I can disagree with a theme or message of a work while still being able to comment on how that theme was conveyed or explored and weather or not structural elements of the story helped or hindered how it conveyed certain elements, regardless of if it spoke to me on a personal level." But whether it was an effective method to convey this theme will also be subjective. It can also be subjective what the theme even is. I also really hate the absolutely incurious attitude about art and I love analyzing art. I really loathe the people who just respond to good analysis with "who cares as long as it made me feel thing" but then don't realise that all that analysis explains "why thing was felt". But when making claims of objectivity I think we end up forgetting why we interact with art in the first place. Our feelings about a piece of art is what gives it value, to try to find value beyond that kinda misses the point. If a piece of art is "objectively good" but no one gets anything out of it, then how can it be considered a good piece of art. "as an aside I think alot of that reaction can come from trying to explain to people who don't understand or don't want to understand our perspective which can be extremely frustrating but I think we do ourselves a massive disservice to give up on the project of analysis and self-refection as a whole.)" Not willing to understand is what I think is the one true problem here. It's either people who think that thinking through a piece of art is going to ruin the experience, or people who just want to prove that their opinion is objectively right (mostly people upset about a follow up to the blockbuster that has been their favorite since they were 12) claiming absolute knowledge about how movies should make and making really bad arguments. I really like seeing other people's perspectives and I have seen good readings on movies that completely contradict each other but I still thought both were well argued and interesting.
Hero's journeys are pretty awesome. The "blank slate" character quickly grows into its own personality, but it allows an audience to go on the adventure WITH them (or "as" them) just as rapidly. However... even Marty McFly, Frodo, Luke, Neo, Harry, and many others made their own choices, totally independent of any given audience's. You are NOT the writer. They are not catering to *your* version of their story... they've written it so that you understand THEIRS. Reflection is key. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
@edengostelow577 for a few dollars more is the best of the three, I was just saying that hipster made it out like you have to be a psuedo-intellectual to love t.g.t.b.&.t.u. but I loved when I was 12. That's all.
@@williamdixon-gk2skright!? Like the film has one of the most recognisable soundtracks, with one of the most iconic actors, in one of the most popular film genres to have existed. Not exactly a hidden gem
@edengostelow577 great point. Even if you don't know the source, that iconic score has been copied a million times. It is THEE soundtrack that instantly means "wild west showdown." Everyone knows it.
Barbie is the most excited I've been for a mainstream film in years, get its name out of your mouth. Its homages speak with a bullhorn of its love for cinema. It HAS a message worth telling.
A message been told since ten years ago with the deepness of ten years ago. Do me a favor and go love the movie, if it makes you happy, but it was never a message "worth telling" when it's the default message.
@@vicentecollao2288 Except it's not. Point me in the direction of another movie that cares simultaneously about the problems facing both women and men. Barbie apologizing to Ken for treating him disposably isn't anything girl boss feminism in media has allowed. The fact that it pissed off two camps by "not being feminist enough" and "man-hating" is why I'm so obsessed with it. Like any necessary movie, it ruffled feathers.
Exactly, the scene where Barbie realizes she wants to be the creator and not the creation hit so hard as a female creative, I know that one came from Greta’s heart
@@peonylarkspur645 I think it's beautiful in a way the biggest films used to be but haven't been in a long time, and wanting to play contrarian about it just because it was massive comes across as dismissing what's so clearly there. It's women getting their own Truman Show but even that is just scraping the surface.
You can appreciate complex, difficult films that require intellectual work and engagement while also appreciating "easier to consume" films that offer subtle, sensitively acted, and heartbreaking storytelling. They are two different forms of art that achieve different purposes - it's not that complicated. The essay this video references calls out Close and The Whale, which are both incredible and life-changing films, just because they are not the difficult films that the author prefers.
@@purekinema I agree even more with you then, although the article is interesting enough, it feels too reductive of those movies and honestly a little pretentious. Also I believe relatability can be used in the right way to invite the viewer and get them comfortable so as to later challenge them. This way the viewer can be more inviting to confrontation. Relatability doesn't have to be the end point. Wish the author was more nuanced on her piece and not hold her own standards for a good storytelling as the only way.
@@laffycade3151 Yes, boiling these movies down to "relatability" misses almost everything they are trying to say and that people have said about them. Also, it is strange that they bring up The Whale as a film about relatability and self-recognition - I doubt many people's main takeaway from that movie is how much they relate to Charlie. Sure, it and the other movies they've mentioned may not be particularly intellectually challenging, but that's not inherently a bad thing - every film is aiming for something different.
I disagree with your assessment of reacting against wokeness. To take some low-hanging fruit examples, Disney’s Andor was *SCREAMINGLY* pro-Communist and leaned heavily into Lucas’ explicit intent to frame the Rebellion as the Viet-Cong analog and therefore as the good guys. It also - if not centered, then at least heavily featured - a lesbian relationship. People who hate The Acolyte also almost always love Andor. No one is afraid of challenging ideas from across the political aisle. What is being reacted against is the idea that transgression, representation, and subversion are intrinsically acceptable substitutes for telling a compelling story. “Wokeness” is lazy in a way that the “moralism” isn’t quite in that it takes *any* criticism as a sign that it is right and good. In Disney’s mind, if no one liked or watched The Acolyte it’s because it told a great transgressive story in the exact same way that Andor was a “failure,” and that’s not true at all.
Interesting perspective on Andor. I have not yet seen it. I tend to stay clear of Star Wars. The trilogy that began with The Phantom Menace didn't quite capture me. However, in the future, should I view Andor, I will keep your assessment in mind. Pretty fascinating, especially as I am not exactly smitten with the scourge of Communism or the people without the foresight to research its death toll in this world, people who extol slogans with empty virtue. (They say Marx had Satanist leanings.)
Pretentious moment here: My favorite movie is Lawrence of Arabia. But hear me out. The movie spoke to me; not the character. At first I thought he did, but it turns out Lawrence is literally NOT me. It argues against the notion that Lawrence was good and righteous and won in the end. No. The story breaks Lawrence while also making him a legend, and you understand how it happened. You can see glimmers of how you might do the same thing in Lawrence's position, and also definitely not in others. And that's the greatness of the storytelling. Also, doesn't hurt that it is one of the most spectacular achievements in cinema from a technical side. Edit: And to note the part in this video about giving time to a movie and all that, I was talking to my 17-year-old nephew recently about movies. He's really, really into cinema and '60s and '70s music right now. It seems to be a genuine exploration of art. But when I said I love Lawrence of Arabia, he said he hadn't seen it, because, "Isn't it, like, super long?" When I pointed out that he has had no problem bingeing six hours of a TV show, it gave him pause. But not really. It is still perceived as a different use of screen time.
Great take, sublime movie. Immerses you in its world like no other. Yet, in many modern senses, it is problematic. For a film set in Arabia there are next to no Arab actors playing names characters. Instead they use brownface. When I tell some people it’s one of my favourites I get called a racist, which is a fair knee jerk response. Why would I love a film with racist depictions unless I agree with those depictions? People seem to have forgotten that no piece of art is perfect, every one is influenced by the time and place it was created in, and every one has something good or bad to be praised or learned from respectively.
I too love that movie despite it being "problematic (white savior issue). A lot of younger people like to point out a movie's problems as a reason to not like that movie, but I don't think like that. You can see a movie has some issue and still love it, and critiquing a movie doesn't just mean pointing out just it's negative aspects.
There's a documentary series on Netflix called "Voir", one of the chapters spoke about unlikable characters, which included Lawrence of Arabia and Michael Corleone.
It's sad that as a society we no longer nurture creativity, curiosity, new ideas, and stepping outside of our comfort zones - in films, but also other forms of art. Part of that is algorithms, but a lot of it is people just becoming intellectually lazier in the ironically-named "Information Age" too. Ask anyone the you meet the last time they read a serious book and that gives you a great idea of where we're at societally.
Cynicism is easy. Meet some cooler people. Don’t let your little bubble of a life define your perspective of the average person. You’re no better than them.
The problem is not the people so much as companies needing to grow every year to please share holders and thus making media that appeals to the widest demographic possible. It trains people to expect all mainstream art to be instantly gratifying and that to be the norm.
I think you're missing the broader context of the entertainment industry to make a philosophical point that greatly undermines your argument and makes you lose credibility here. You say that "conservative" movie reviewers are complaining about DEI and "woke" but you also conveniently fail to add that like you mention earlier with the examples of Barbie and other movies - the industry is marketing and incentivizing the films to be this way intentionally. Everything you complain about is epitomized by that fact. For example as of 2023, to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, films must meet a certain criteria for DEI. This completely undermines your point and you come off as biased while presenting yourself as trying to be objective, which makes your argument irrational. For the people saying representation needs to be forced because "marginalized" people have not been represented, this is patently and demonstrably false. Movies have been "diverse" for decades, with many actors and actresses being nominated for and WINNING awards, for their portrayals of characters in films that had nothing to do with social or political or otherwise "literally me" or "representative" movies. Just from memory Denzel Washington has been nominated for Best Actor half a dozen times in the last few decades. The Fast & Furious series has had diversity since the beginning and doesn't need to make a social or racial point to show that. Sidney Poitier won in 1963. Halle Berry in Monster's Ball 20+ years ago and thanked other black actresses that came before her - that's great, and highlights the point that LSOO is *trying* to make - that her role in the movie is way more complex than her race. These portrayals and films didn't need to make cheap lines to market the movie - When LSOO tries to make his clumsy point, he shows a clip of No Time To Die with Lashana Lynch who in the trailer says "Stay in your lane" This line was cut from the movie because it was divisive and intentionally provocative in line with meta social and racial narratives that have invaded the industry like cancer. In the American and British film industries in the 20th century, of course these films are going to have majority white representation, which has naturally changed with demographics - but for decades now movies have been VERY inclusive, without industry/laws mandating that, which has changed in recent years like the Oscars. Does anyone complain that Bollywood productions feature Indian protagonists that sometimes make villains white like in "RRR"? No. The problem now, is like LSOO mentions, new films are trying to be "literally me" but for DEI reasons, and the films become shallow and one note. Ask yourself why can males of all races and ages identify with Goku or Vegeta - blonde haired blue eyed "aryan" warriors (created by Japanese artists) since the 1980's, but now Ariel from the Little Mermaid should be race changed to being black?
Both Goku & Vegeta have dark hair and are Saiyans who aren't real, also Mermaids don't exist either. I reckon you are the one making a biased, irrational argument, while presenting yourself as trying to be objective...
@@S00NERD0G "Who is blonde Goku? The Super Saiyan form spared the trouble of coloring Goku's hair all the time for the standard black-and-white manga pages. This was the reason for the Super Saiyan form having blonde hair, because it was easier to draw for Toriyama's assistant who spent a lot of time blacking in Goku's hair."
"For example as of 2023, to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, films must meet a certain criteria for DEI." Bitch, you know Oppenheimer won right? It's the most dudes on dudes movie in recent memory. You don't actually care about film, you just want to not think about real life stuff getting in the way of your entertainment.
Honestly, more and more people are simply unable or unwilling to allow art of any kind to effect them. That takes a certain openness and vulnerability. Most prefer to be closed and invulnerable. It's easier that way.
33:25 In defense of using cinema as comfort, sometimes it is nice to watch an unchallenging sitcom to relax to with a loved one. There is still artistic and emotional merit to making something refreshing. Episodic comedies have been largely replaced with serialized shows to be binge watched and examined. Sometimes having a problem be resolved in 15 or 30 minutes is good enough.
Absolutely. It is possible to both immerse yourself in movies and enjoy comfort entertainment. I frequently put Friends or Blackadder on while I'm doing something else, or maybe when I'm exhausted from work and don't want to think for a while. I even have comfort movies, and am particularly fond of disaster movies like 2012 for this purpose. Once I'm recharged or my chores are done, I settle down with a warm drink and watch an immersive and epic film. Different art has different objectives. I'm reminded of being a teenager into club-oriented dance music and people would say it was rubbish because "you can't listen to it outside of a club," to which I replied, "you're missing the point. That's exactly what it's for, and people enjoy dancing to it, or maybe listen to it in the gym or while driving, and therefore it is working as intended and therefore good." You can't compare it to an introspective prog metal album that you listen to at home when you're high. They have very different objectives!
I also love how Rogert Ebert described movie as "machine that generates empathy". It really nails why many film I enjoy make me relate to characters with experience I'll never come close to or actions I'll never agree upon. Relatability shouldn't be treated as sameness to someone, but an opportunity to understand that someone so different can share the same human emotions as us.
My favorite movies I’ve seen this month are In the Mood for Love, La Chimera, and Monster. And tonight I’m going to see Jaws in theaters for the first time. I am in the phase of seeing so many movies for the first time and I’m experiencing so much awe and continually exploring new directors and I’m having a great time.
In general I'm not a fan of propaganda, which is what I consider movies or tv shows that forget story-telling and competent film-making form in favor of social messaging. A lot of the "representation obsession" is simply social messaging propaganda. When story-telling is done properly--when filmmaking is done properly--the audience doesn't care about representation.
Agree, Disney is very guilty of this and doesn't understand what they're doing wrong. I think there is definitely a crowd that just cynically hates anything not starring someone who looks like them, but the more interesting discussion is how big movie studios think representation can paper over poor, uninspiring stories. Many audiences can sense how inauthentic some of these stories are, and it is more about the filmmakers politics than telling a coherent story and giving us an interesting experience. And politics can definitely have a place in films of course, but there's an insincerity to how they've been implemented lately because its main goal isn't to highlight the specific discourse, but just to profit off of it.
@@Ray03595 Except it isn't profitable at all! Disney's been burning money since Avengers: Endgame. That's why it's classifiable propaganda--the political/social messaging has been far more important than anything related to storytelling, cinema, or even success, it seems.
I would say it's not about representation, but about messaging. I have watched a few movies recently where I actually agreed with the sentiment of the movie but didn't like how the point was sledgehammered into the viewer. The message has more resonance if it's woven into the movie and the viewer feels like they came up with it by themselves. This is how good teachers teach. You equip your student with the tools to make inferences, then ask them for the inference, and then they feel like they reached the conclusion by themselves. It's empowering. Barbie was the worst offender here. I agreed with the messaging of the movie, but really didn't like how blunt it was. Maybe it was aimed at kids, in which case it's not so bad, but I think even kids can handle a little more coded messaging rather than bluntness: I enjoyed Transformers (the 80s series) as a kid, and there's a lot in there about friendship and reaching across social divides, and I got that even though it's woven into the story and is not explicitly stated. There's nothing you can do to stop someone who is racist from disliking an anti-racist movie, but you can do something about making sure your anti-racist message comes across through good storytelling rather than being tacked on. And in case it needed pointing out, there's nothing wrong with having such messages in movies. Art should challenge, educate and motivate as well as entertain.
@@devononair Exactly! It's like our nation's storytellers have lost the ability to simply tell a good story and let the story be as honest & true as possible. The audience can draw it's own conclusions about how they want to live in reaction to it. That's what great art does. It is not pleasant to be TOLD you have to live "THIS WAY" not "THAT WAY".
It's just that most people don't like movies ; they like the movies they like. To put it in an other way, they see cinema not as an art form, but as an entertainement.
This is true, but I doubt it is a new phenomenon. Most people have "art" on their walls, but the majority have watercolours of landscapes or animals, and those same people say "modern art is a load of rubbish." I think that it is true and probably has always been true that the majority of people want to work, play and relax, and not think deeply about why we are here. During the renaissance, art patrongs would have paintings commissioned and the artists would insert hidden meaning in the work, and the patrons would never realise. True art exists for the few people who really want to think about why we are here, and perhaps, maybe enlighten a few of the masses along the way.
Do you mean BR2049 or the original? Personally, when I saw BR2049, I immediately knew that it was layered and designed WAY beyond what most movies were all about. I even recognized that it would be "boring" and "drawn out" to the masses. But holy sheet was it a bloody FANTASTIC production in nearly every regard. The costuming, lighting, music, specific performances (BAUTISTA WAS AWESOME!!!), the color palettes, the direction, the thematic underpinnings... all of it.
@@Novastar.SaberCombat yeah I went to see BR2049 with friends (in their 50s, who loved the original) and when the credits rolled one of them audibly said "what the f?" we talked in the car and they said they didn't get it. I dont think they ever rewatched it.
I absolutely adore the original, but as for 2049, I think it's probably the most lifeless and sterile movies I've ever watched. All the flat, empty sets, monochromatic lighting, lifeless performances, and empty sound design. I don't understand what people see in it. Its world fails to live and breathe the way the original did. It's why I haven't bothered with anything else Dennis Villeneuve has put out.
I think since costs have increased audiences tend to prefer something they have a higher chance of enjoying. Also studios insist on huge budgets and therefore are afraid of risks
That's so true from the opposite perspective as well. The cinema is so expensive that I have no interest in spending that much to not be challenged or taken out of my reality. Also the complete lack of cinema decorum is a huge turn off these days.
Why can people just simply embrace that you can like, even love, the Marvel movies AND The Citizen Kane?? My patron saint, Roger Ebert, would agree with me.
I never realized how often people were trying to find relatability while watching a movie. Most of the time for me, the experience of watching a film has always been about immersing myself in a different world or exploring unique perspectives. Take, for instance, Sin City, one of my favorite films. Although I couldn't relate to the volatile characters, I found it captivating to delve into their world and observe the dynamics of government, gangs, and relationships unfold over the course of 2 hours. I’ve always thought that the allure of cinema lies in the creation of immersive story worlds and compelling storytelling. Perhaps I simply have an imaginative mindset and prefer to appreciate the narrative presented to me rather than constantly seeking personal connections. Also to add, I’m not knocking those who want to watch something relatable (I do sometimes as well) this was just a very interesting perspective and well made video that opened my mind up to how others enjoy cinema!! Fyi: This is just some thoughts I had about pt 1. Open discussion or critiques is more than welcomed!!
I was conflicted about how this video leans into the worst of film snobbery, but the comments have affirmed my conviction. So much of this essay reads as "the moral failure of the sheeple to truly understand cinema." It takes a full 30 minutes to even examine what factors might contribute to people choosing unchallenging media, but then falls back on "people just need to watch better movies." And the essay doesn't acknowledge that critics have complained about the decline of the public's relationship with art for as long as there have been critics. So frustrating!
I also think there's a bit of general xenophobia buried in the constant use of foreign films specifically. There's a reason those TikTok people tend to pick European countries as examples because it would sound too blatant otherwise. I struggle a lot with attention span but I personally find that watching a movie with at least one other person gets me to stay locked on it, whereas when I'm watching alone it's too easy to justify distracting myself with something else. I know this doesn't work for everyone though. It always makes me sad when I see my friends scrolling on their phones during an entire movie or conversation.
Perhaps this is new to this channels audience, but nothing herein isn't covered in an introductory course in media (oh, perhaps I'm so old that media courses not longer cover this?) , and an essay that purports to bemoan a change in cinema without mentioning either the Marcarthy era or McLuhan (again perhaps I'm too old) doesn't fill me with confidence in the analysis. Plus it's filled with platitudes and deepities (look it up). Perhaps it's because my experience of so-called "art-house" movies and subsequent analysis with people who supposedly get it, is that these are jumbles of concepts thrown together in the hope that they appear deep and the audience will draw their own relevance from that confusion. When it does appear that there's coherence, the concepts and challenges are not new, and no progression is made in exploring the underlying questions or concepts. (not that I'm happy with modern movies) I'll return to shaking my fist at the sky. (But I will look at your other videos!)
I was really worried you were going to do what you did at 14:55. You reduced the ‘anti-woke’ criticism to a sound bite caricature. You then go onto paint an unfair picture using that caricature, offering, I think, precisely zero substance. I see this more and more for those assuming the ‘middle-ground position…. …Oh. As I was typing this comment, you went and jumped the shark. “The anti-woke movement tends to be rooted in bigotry…” Please show your working on that sweeping assertion.
I’ve always thought Tenet was a great example of this. Fresh concept, innovative story telling, yet people shunned it because they couldn’t be bothered to figure it out.
Thanks for making your videos. You've cultivated a nice community of like minded people. I feel a strong connection to everything you say and everyone here. A community who still value depth and quality but aren't elitist or snobbish.
@@sagniksarkar2471 Indeed. I think they are literally me :) *we are legion.* We will terrorize the world with nuanced opinions and an above average attention span.
For what it’s worth, I think that those Tik Toks make a valid point. Movies like “Toy Story” as mentioned in one of those Tik Toks legitimately mean a lot to a ton of people. Yet, some people do seem to be embarrassed to admit it because it’s an animated film that’s under the Disney umbrella. Yet, that film and so many other “conventional pop corn” flicks reached people for a reason. Why be embarrassed to admit that it reached you too? At the same time, a lot of people are embarrassed to admit if their favorite movie is, let’s say an experimental French movie from the 60’s for different reasons. They worry about seeming “different” or like an “outcast” if they admit to like movies that are against the grain. When people are asked, “What is your favorite movie?” at an indie film festival, they might feel compelled to say something that will help fit into that crowd. When asked the same question in a more informal setting, you might feel compelled to Give a more “informal” answer. What our actual “favorite movies” are though almost never fits into easy boxes like that in my opinion.
it doesn't matter where I am or who I'm talking to: my favorite movie is blade runner 2049. maybe that's because it was a somewhat successful blockbuster, and is also a very slow and difficult watch.
@@lavabeard5939 Blade Runner 2049 was an "artistic" success but it flopped at the box office. Modern audiences do not enjoy "slow" movies unfortunately...
@@chebbou69 yeah it wasnt a huge success (I dont think it lost money though, maybe it did), but it was still a big movie. so I can get away with saying its my favorite without people looking at me sideways lol
I think the point is, that they assume you're lying when you mention something "not popular". Why cant they just accept that you may genuinely like the films you claim to like? It's like people are very intimidated by others and wanna create trends to make themselves feel better when nobody is actually harming them.
Toy Story is one of the most socially acceptable "favorite movies as a kid" answer anyone could give. it's this pretending to be disadvantaged shtick that drives me mad. you've made up a person. no one is making fun of you for having liked Toy Story as a child, or even now. Toy Story 4 grossed 1 billion worldwide. the majority of those viewers were adults or adults with children.
Part of me thinks that there is so much to be stressed about lately that people are just looking for an escape. One where they don’t have to think too much or feel too much.
@hannnnahhahhahha the problem is they want every single pience of entertainment to revolve around them and need to be spoonfed, they dont get that other people exist too and want an escape, and want different things in entertainment in order to better consistently escape people mock others for wanting villains that are pure evil, unforgivable, irredeemable saying those villains are boring, lack depth, childish, cartoonish, one-note, soulless, only for kids; they have very infantalizing and condescending attitudes
I know you as being both intelligent and wise, but it seems to me that you have not yet seen how malevolent, insane and destructive the woke ideology is. We really do need to actively work against it, or it will destroy us. Economic profit has always been a motive for creating movies, but these days political correctness have become a higher priority for several production companies. The destruction of old franchises gives new creators a chance to be discovered, like seeds sprouting after a forest fire.
I'm honestly really disappointed in the clickbait title and thumbnail on a video that is nominally against the algorithmic serving of content. That disappointment though is far outstripped by my disappointment in the judgmental attitude featured in most of the video. I have no problem with examining cultural trends, but you lose me when you start going on about how things were so much better in the past (they weren't; to take an example you used, Fight Club also clearly utilizes relatability in its main character and engages in overt moralizing) and denigrating those who don't engage with film the way you do when you clearly know, based on some of the things you said in this very video, that the problem lies with the socioeconomic system and not with those individuals. It is quite ironic that you seem to be using this very video to cast yourself as being on the side of "saving" cinema so you can feel comfortable again in your role as someone who critiques film after encountering ideas that made you question yourself and feel uncomfortable. I originally subscribed to this channel because of videos like the Lover/King/Warrior/Magician archetype series, the Arrival video on confronting existential fear, and even more recent ones like the 'lighting the beacons' LotR video, because they were excellent explorations of concepts presented in movies. The kind of content represented in this video and others you have recently put out is why I am now unsubscribing. I wish you the best and hope that your content does well, but I will not support you while you continue like this.
I've always enjoyed going to the movie theater, but I feel like I enjoy it more now because I'm in a dark room where I usually try to turn my phone off and not get distracted.
Let me offer a lone (?) dissenting voice. People don't, in general, think people who like art house cinema are pretentious, but what some are objecting to is being looked down upon for liking "simple" movies. I don't think this video helps in that respect. The second point of wokeness making movies worse -- I concede that that can be annoying, but movies have always reflected what is happening in society. Take a broader view. Don't judge a person for dancing, they may be very well read, and could, perhaps, happily discuss poetry or go deep into philosophy. Even if they are billionaires. In the end, I'm happy that you still enjoy cinema. I just don't think things are as dire as you paint them.
There's nothing wrong with moralism in art. Every great novel from the 18th and 19th Centuries (not to mention most medieval poetry and on and on) was self-consciously moralistic-trying to teach their audience some kind of lesson, whether about the importance of some virtue or the proper way to behave in a certain type of situation. It seems like the problem with our moralistic movies today is that they are written by people who want to teach morality without having thought very hard about it beforehand. I think there's a tendency for people today to think a work has to do be morally ambiguous to be challenging. But that's not really true at all. For example, when I read Mansfield Park I found very clear teachings on morality, yet it still challenged me because they we're not quite the ones I held myself.
If "literally me" was taking over all cinema, then the most successful filmmaker in the business wouldn't be Christopher Nolan. I can't think of anyone who watched a single one of his films and actually related to the characters. That's not the point of his films. I know a lot of people call this a flaw, but here, I think this is part of the point you're making. Seeing yourself in the characters is not the sole purpose of cinema, or even all that important. Sometimes, you need to step out of yourself to look at someone that's entirely unlike you, and actually see them.
My understanding of "literally me" was that it was simply a social trend, where people were projecting themselves onto characters that weren't meant to be role models. I don't think the video was trying to say it was reflective of any intent in film-making.
Not only that, but changing the race of characters in a worse retelling, just because. A study of the "remakes" genre would tell any honest person that they are inferior and it's highly likely because of the race agenda they're going for.
I've been rediscovering classics and forcing myself to watch mostly fringe cinema, forgotten high concept works, weird stuff, and I can't help but need or crave a big mac every now and then, but commercial movies do frustrate me a lot as well.
"just say toy story" why?? some of us watch "grown up" movies as kids that impact us much much more than ...toy story, tik tok discourse is just one long 'haAh RiGHt GuYs??????' for the intellectually lazy
Last movie that really blew me away was Top Gun: Maverick. Rewatched it for 4th of July. It feels like the kind of movies my Dad used to show me that he grew up with. It's just good clean fun and it makes you feel incredible.
60 years from now a 40 year old man will say his favorite movie is the classic Top Gun: Maverick. His 19 year old son rolls his eyes, too bad his dad´s taste in movies is so dry, boring and pretentious.
To me it kinda felt like that with Inside Out 2, I hadn't seen a Pixar movie in theaters since Toy Story 4 in 2019, but this new sequel (which I wasn't expecting) blew me away, I would even say I liked it more than the first one (which was good), this one felt more mature, I found reflecting about myself (am I a good person?) and also laughing, it's the happiest I felt in a long time, during and after the movie ended. It was also a great communal experience, theater packed, lots of kids, parents and grandparents, my Mom hadn't seen long rows to see a movie since the 80s, we loved it.
@@Desmond9100Top Gun isn't even pretentious, it's american propaganda at best, but I could see the appeal at the time, my Mom saw it at the time, my Uncle was in the navy, many army men in my family, it was like "feeling at home" seeing all those white uniforms, I also like those scenes where the boys are singing, I imagine that's what my Uncle did with his navy friends during his youth.
Using Nerdrotic's words as an entrê to shallowness in calling something "woke" is deeply disingenuous or ignorant. What he critiques is "representation" over "story"; that is characters who are only cardboard imitations of people without any consistency in motivation, dialogue , etc. The engire non-mainstream youtube media critic culture mourns the loss of story to the shallow slapping of a non-white person into a role and thinking that it gives the movie meaning AND also the replacing of historic racial representation whith non-historical mash-mash of racial identities that lack reason and context (such as the Black Viking) AND the introduction of pop-Deconstructionism (such as in the Woman King) where non-whites can only be virtuous and white men can only be evil. It is the shallowness of the effort that offends. For instance, contrast the gay/lesbian relationships in Good Omens season 2 (which left this straight white conservative religious male) with a true sense of loss at the irreconcilable division between Crowly and Aziraphale at the ending vs the shallow representation in The Acolyte which offends me with it's forced insertion at a hinted relationship between Osha and Jacki in an already over-deconstructed franchise.
I didn’t realize that 2001 wasn’t actually my favorite film. I wish someone told me that before I bought a bunch of shirts, painted the logo on my wall, and spent countless hours watching and rewatching it. I guess my favorite movie really is every marvel movie. Thanks for setting me straight
Well, a very pessimistic take indeed - there has always been a difference between true cinema and shallow entertainment, arthouse and popcorn, independent cinema and relatable Hollywood blockbuster franchises. Its all a matter of choice (and intellect), at least to me. And then there are border crossers like recently Dune, failed Oscar-candidates like Babylon and the whole range of auteur-cinema (Malick, Eggers, Guadagnino...). No reason for dispair, I think.
I definitely don't agree that anti-woke is rooted in bigotry, even though that can definitely be a part of it. Representation has become such a huge part of production it's an absurdity, that's what people are latching onto. There is no real logic in the decision to make a production "woke" outside of artisticly arbitrary popular politics.
My favourite movies includes 12 Angry Men, Rashomon, Inception, Memento, X-Men Days of the future Past the Entire Mummy series and I think there is no bar of likeness because all these movies just blew my mind and moved me emotionally, whatever moves me emotionally I love it.
I think the idea from Kayleigh Dray holds weight, but I recognize in myself that I turn on LOTR when I’m alone, because it’s like having my friends on the screen…or “my Family” if you are familiar with the ideas of the novel “Fahrenheit 451”. As a registered nurse myself, I think for some people, stems from a place of disconnection: on average, there are too many people on the planet and we all have too many connections and the world moves too fast, and therefore we must find ways to cope with being overwhelmed.
I think for the first time, I actually disagree with you completely on one of your analyses. Your claim that the criticisms of wokeness have become just a reflexive response to diversity is wildly inaccurate. The issue is that people are using diversity of skin color, ethnicity and sexual orientation, to supplant diversity of story and character. People are fighting back because these ideologies are being broadcast lock step by major media and aiming to influence you and society. I can agree that there are personalities on the internet who are fanning the flames, but Idk man. Im not taking the time to write out a whole essay, but as a big fan of your work and essays, I think more of your time and analysis could go to that topic. Disney lost Billions in market valuation the last five years, this ideology is not popular. I think you scratched the surface of a much bigger cultural phenomenon and chalking it up to “these people are just bigots”, is totally wrong. I invite your response.
Then why do "anti-woke" commentators get mad when just the casting of a woman or a person of color is announced, instead of waiting to see what the end product's stories and characters are like? Conversely, why do they get mad at things like Black Ariel in the live-action Little Mermaid remake, a movie that nobody was expecting any "diversity of storytelling or character" from?
@@erraticonteuse it’s pretty straightforward. Is it a pattern that studios are leaning further and further into diversity hires? I would say yes. It’s just confirmation bias that the story telling will come second to the political check boxes being filled out. I think all of those people who criticize it would be open to the idea that they could be wrong. If the movie came out and was a banger, they’d admit it . Very few quality pictures are coming out. It’s largely political propaganda. As for Ariel, why are black people allowed to call out cultural appropriation, but then when white culture is appropriated it’s okay? Ariel was white. Now to be clear, I couldn’t care less, but if you don’t see it’s a political move, you’re not paying attention to what’s going on in culture.
What's a movie you've recently seen, new or old, that really blew you away? And how so? Always love some good recommendations! :D
Everything Everywhere All At Once
For me the old would include 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Deliverance, The Sixth Sense and The Green Mile. The new would include Blade Runner 2049, I’m Thinking Of Ending Things, Get Out and two short Star Wars films: Premonition and Star Wars Origins. Thank you, Tom, for this most thought-provoking video on your channel. 👍🏻
Godzilla Minus One.
It was the best of the franchise.
The Ascent and Portrait of Jason. The Ascent begins as a fairly traditional war film, but it develops into a profoundly moving spiritual allegory. Masterful direction and sound design. Portrait of Jason is probably one of the most psychologically complex character studies I've ever seen rendered on film. It's no surprise Ingmar Bergman rates it as highly as he does. Thank you for your work.
Dune part 2 gave me goosebumps for hours
The funny thing about the first clip is that the good the bad and the ugly isn't even a pretentious film
It would be like calling Raiders an art film, hahaha
We live in a day where Italian pulp schlock is thought of as highbrow. We are fucked.
@@anthonybird546 inb4 barbie is considered high brow pretentious cinema in 2050
yeah, it's a major western film that when viewed from the time it was released, it wasn't an "indie pretentious film". It's more akin to a mainstream film back then
It's a non-Disney, non-superhero film and for a lot of people now, that means it IS pretentious and high brow and snobby and other dismissive terms meaning "you shouldn't watch it/have watched it".
"older classics like Fight Club"
Time keeps on slippin...
Time is the only resource.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
Nooooo!!!! but for real it's like.. 25 years old... That'd be like a commentator in 1993 referencing a movie from 1968 man! To me it blows my mind that 2 and 1/2 decades have passed since it released. Makes my brain hurt.
Yup. Saw it a couple of months ago at my local cinema as a 25th anniversary screening. Still love it as much now as when I saw it as a 19 year old. Also saw Network at a screening last night. Both have a lot to say about trusting the narrative and capitalism and were both mainstream movies. But stick in my mind and make me think.
Also The Matrix 😂
Slippin' slippin', into the fuuuuuutuuuuuure.
Anti-intellectualism is more harmful than plain ignorance.
True, but so is elitism.
@@hitandruncommentor Unfortunately, the intellect frequently ends up as collateral damage when fighting the elites.
@hitandruncommentor what's elite in movies???
@@hitandruncommentor Yup, I call it pretentiousness. Put subtitles on when you watch a movie like Dune or the latest bladerunner.
They literally don't make any sense once you READ the dialogue. It's just a load of big complicated words chucked together, with the clear intent of sounding smart, but it's absolute mush.
I think our standards of "high cinema" have been seriously dropped. Pretentious, but meaningless dialogue, makes a 'good' movie these days apparently.
@@magicbuns4868villeneuve has said something like that he would prefer movies didn’t even have dialogue at all. he’s a visual guy, and those are visually fantastic films, but they are intellectually / verbally totally underbaked (natural consequence of the director most basically only caring about how they look)
its not just cinema. if you try and have in depth conversation about any art form people automatically think you're pretentious. it makes me very slow to talk about stuff i'm really interested in cos people will think i'm weird.
Same
Like many people who appreciate this channel, I'm into all kinds of media. I read when I can, and consume audio books when i can't. In my early 20s, I came to the realization that just because I wasn't in school, did not mean I had to stop learning, even through experiences if need be. I've been classically trained in the kitchen, and it's what I did professionally for about a decade. I'm back in school and about to receive a degree. What I'm saying is I've learned so much, am still hungry for more, and am excited to share it when I can. Someone recently told me, "You'd get along with my cousin. You guys are into THINGS." As if the default is just nonengagment with anything that challenges.
I had a (not-too-close) friend make a drunk offhand comment about how I probably ruin dates because I "go off about some book or whatever." Mind you, he was making up this scenario based on how I banter with more distant friends -- and it made me very thankful I keep a barrier between him and anything about my love life. But I thought it was pretty rich coming from him considering he will derail any conversation to talk about marijuana laws for 30 minutes straight. We all have our pockets of interest.
@@Bnio Wise, only get close to people that respect your interests.
Mmhm this scornful attitude towards passion is very pervasive and I feel like it's been getting worse in the last couple of years.
All my fictional passions are dead because of this, not just the franchises but whole genres of cinema have died in the last 20 years. Sucks when the only art you want to gab about is so long dead people don't even know what it is. I'm only in my 20s!! I'm far too young for this to be happening to me, and yet here I am.
What's your favourite food?
"Hmmm, a margherita pizza with nice bufala. Some nice olives and prosciutto on the side?"
Why are you lying? Just tell us it's carrots and ranch with Chicken McNuggets?
Hell nah, Meat Lovers all the way.
@@JZStudiosonline When I was young I used to like that. Now I just want the spot-on dough, sauce and cheese to sing. Less is more.
That's the perfect metaphor.
@@kevincgrabb I'm still arguing meat lovers. I've had decent pizza, but typically when I eat I want it to actually be filling and have more nutrition than just carbs and a couple pieces of lettuce.
Passion for cinema is uncomplicated to me. I watch everything that interests me - be it mainstream, arthouse, old, new, considered "bad", considered "good."
I don't look down on anything. I just bring my hope to enjoy what I'm about to watch.
This! This is how I watch everything. I just hope whatever it is I will enjoy it, that I'll be moved, and engaged. Lately I've been exploring Quiet Cinema (it's fascinating), while still enjoying the latest superhero and Horror movies!
Exactly. I watch anything that interest me. I watch good, bad, okay movies. Foreign language, animated... If it makes me curious I'll watch. I'm still guilty of Rotten Tomatoes letting me determine my viewing habits though because sometimes I want to watch a "truly" good film, but I've watched "truly" good films that are deemed "rotten". Surprised this video essay didnt bring up these aggregate sites and how movie studios specifically aim for high critic scores to shape audience perception.
Best way to view cinema and mainstream. This is an artistic medium. Say what you want about directors like Michael Bay there are technical talents that Bay has that others do not. Jane Champion has talents that Bay doesn't have. Glad that both are around.
The way I think about it is that a bunch of artists worked hard on every movie even if it's not that good. Movies are more interesting when I think about the decisions made to produce the film
@MagicCarpetRideShareProject Love it all, but special nod for _Scanners_ and _Midnight_ _Run_ ... They seemingly don't make 'em like they used to ;)
Glad to see someone call out the commodification of relatability and the moralisation of taste. I run in poetry circles myself and it’s exactly the same thing. The end result is just people refusing to read empathetically, hating ambiguity and erasing expressions that they can’t project on.
Every circle begins with its end. Reflection is key.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
Good thing I don't run in poetry circles. If it doesn't rhyme, I am unlikely to like it! :)
I find "hating ambiguity" to be so true. Even the people I love most often hate the films I love because I love a lot of films that have ambiguous characters, plot points, and conclusions. I just like that. I like a well-done "open for interpretation" character or story. But almost no one else does.
Here's the thing though: people by and large reject the "moralisation of taste". This stuff is failing the more aggressively it gets marketed. Art is, first and foremost, entertainment. Has always been, will always be. Fail to entertain and you'll be back to creating art as a hobby soon enough, because noone will pay you.
"Commodification of relatability" and "Moralisation of taste" how wonderfully succint phrases summarising these issues.
Oooo that opening made me mad. Yes I liked Star Wars and Iron Man, but one of the most impactful movies I saw as a kid was literally The Good The Bad and The Ugly. To pretend like that's some kind of fake snobby answer says more about those people than it does about me.
I went to a Star Wars film forum cycle, not only they were playing all six movies each saturday, but each sunday they played movies that influenced or were related to George Lucas in some way (Ben-Hur, Blade Runner, 2001: A Space Oddysey, Excalibur, The Good The Bad and The Ugly, and Apocalypse Now), growing up as a fan, I discovered so many wonderful movie classics due to my interest in researching what movies influenced my favorite directors such as George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, I even watched THX 1138 and American Graffiti, I wouldn't know Akira Kurosawa if it weren't for it.
The Good The Bad and the Ugly isn't even that highbrow like it's literally just a great action movie... but people are assuming because it's older it must be something inaccessible.
The funny thing is, when Star Wars was made you could call it an indie title, no studio wanted it, and it just happened to have its breakthrough.
That's why I avoid the doomer takes about "art is going to shit". I'm sure previous generations said the same, for different reasons. And when art does change, as Cormac implies in the video, yes art is a reflection of society and of the times. We can all appreciate classical music today, but as a genre it's no longer as relevant as it once was, or produced at a similar capacity or even quality - and that's fine.
There will always be a divide between art made for money and art made for expression, and the eventual convergence of ideas that manage to do both and create new genres and classics. Art will be fine, and we already have classics of our time that will join the list of greats in 100 years, just like there were plenty of forgettable music, movies, books, paintings made in the past.
@@voidgodsi agree with all of this. i’m passionately opposed to the rampant sterilisation and commercialisation of artistic expression. whenever i can i encourage people to expand their horizons and be truly curious. as a creator myself i am always calling out, and pushing back against, the smothering influence corporatism has on what gets made.
but what i don’t do is say ‘art is doomed’. that’s not helpful. people don’t respond to prophecies of doom with positive, productive action. they respond with resignation and pessimism. it makes them less curious, less motivated to explore.
and i just don’t believe it’s true. especially the narrative of art and art appreciation ‘going downhill’ and that society is getting dumber. i don’t have patience for that kind of ‘idiocracy’ portrayal of the average person, and for the cynical solipsism it seems to inspire in those who view themselves as intellectuals.
we don’t have the same memory for the bad movies that came out in the 80s, or the 60s, or the 40s. the classics have risen to the surface since then, and canonised. we minimise the corporate aspects of their productions because those movies managed to transcend them. plus, we’re not from the 1940s, so we don’t feel pandered to by many of the filmmaking and writing decisions that were pandering to audiences of that era.
i see reason to be thoughtful, wary, vigilant, critical. i see stuff we need to push back against. but i don’t see reason to be hopeless. i hope that we, who believe in the benefits of expanding one’s horizons and cinematic palette, can encourage this in others without coming off as condescending or judgemental. and i hope that we, too, are careful to examine our preconceived notions going into a film, whatever genre it might be, whenever it was made, and by whom.
@@joa1401exactly, great points, we must also remain cautious about the self-indulge of thinking our way of appreciating things is the most intelectually relevant way. People can have mentally taxing jobs and enjoy stupid movies, or the opposite, or both at the same time, there is no right or wrong way to enjoy art, and if you like something there will always be someone, somewhere else that enjoy the same things and then you can create and share appreciation about something between yourselves, without expecting the general audience to follow through - that is always how art worked, by it's nature.
As for "negativity makes people less curious", that couldn't be more true.
By mocking foreign films, arthouse, and older movies, all these TikTokers are showing is that they have very narrow taste.
People with good taste enjoy a large variety of art.
Does it matter if you have narrow or wide taste?
@@realmarsastro That was kind of a long answer to say no. I prefer depth vs breadth.
@@Roescoe aka shallow
@@smoadia85 yup, those with only a breadth of taste are shallow because they don't have any particularly deep knowledge
There's no such thing as "good taste", simply different taste. No disagreement with the rest of your comment.
What baffles me is how those TikTokers act like "I enjoy fun movies" is some sort of controversial hot take they need to defend. Blockbusters have $100+ million advertising campaigns and are made to appeal to as wide a market as possible, while the "foreign-sounding" movies they're mocking are lucky to have an audience at all. Deadpool 3, for example, is being shoved down my throat before it's even released, yet these people act like it's in a disadvantaged position. I'm a die hard Nolan and Villenueve fan, but I don't go around acting like the existence of lower budget, avant garde movies is somehow a threat to theirs.
I think they were talking more about the sufferability of those who insist that nothing but those arthouse movies are worth watching.
@@NadiaSeesIt well, the way they phrase their frustration create a different reaction. The way The Tiktokers said is instead more similar to the snobbish elitist that they hate on. The tiktokers act as if the "fun" and blockbuster movies are the only ones worth watching.
One of the tiktoker clearly mock someone who enjoys 2001, I need to ask why? If the person genuinely enjoys 2001, then what's the problem? Why is she so insistent in mocking someone's favorite film when that person likes it not to be seen as an elitist?
I'm a fellow huge Nolan fan and most people still acknowledge batman begins, dark knight, interstellar, and inception were amazing films.
Memento is too odd duck, complex, confusing, and makes you have to analyze and think about things so npc or normies won't get it or like it...but I love it.
Memento is one of the best films of all time. Everyone knows dark knight and inception...but memento will always be Nolans true masterpiece.
@@Gameruin3r Memento is the only Nolan film that is actually a great work of art. The rest are just popcorn movies with a bombastic soundtrack.
Sadly, most of those advocating that we "learn to face being uncomfortable" have in mind someone else being made uncomfortable, not themselves.
Woah, THIS.
Not to get specifically political, but I do see people blanket claiming things like “People of X political leaning do not make good art”, and then you ask what have they watched that made them reach that conclusion and it is either they have watched nothing or have watched the most extreme art made by that position.
It is fine if gore or animal cruelty makes you uncomfortable and you avoid movies that have these things, but I believe it is unhealthy if just different ideas you disagree make you uncomfortable enough to not even engage with them. It would be better to try to understand them in art rather than in the ballot box, when discussion may be long over.
...wait, I'm confused. Does that include LSOO? Cause I feel like LSOO is preaching that idea and being open about it. I think by saying that "those who are advocating this" is like, an obfuscation and projecting to a vague type of other person who exists.
@@AfutureV I couldn't watch "the Graduate." I suppose I would also avoid a film if I thought it was actively promoting evil.
TOLERANCE is not always a two-way street, nor should it be. Asking intolerant people to be more tolerant (and face their discomfort) doesn't mean we, in return, have to tolerate their intolerance.
"it's ok you can say you want to look smart"
"no i like engaging with high concept ideas that strike me personally"
"don't make me feel insecure !"
“High concept” means easy to explain quickly, and it’s used as a shorthand for a plot that’s immediately compelling and marketable without much explanation. I think you mean “complex” or even “low concept.”
@@jerryachtermann6399 ya, I think a lot of people would understand the use better in computer programming terms; when you line it up with the idea of low level programming, versus high level programming.
Yes because something like the "Light house" strikes you personally doesn't it?
I mean, I understand that it has a subtext of mental illness born from isolation and what people can do in extreme situations but that took me, literally, a bit of scouring to research.
And I don't even think the Lighthouse is up to my speed, because I watch shit like Fast and the Furious or Triple fucking X because they're FUN.
Most of these people don't bother to even do as much, they probably watch an essay like this one and get on with it.
I've fully immersed myself in "made me smile" content she described. Id then watch more thought provoking content with lots of consideration gone into the writing and directing and found myself more emotionally enriched. The difference? I use my imagination a lot more with enriching story telling. I don't like how that is categorized as pretentious. These people need to exercise their imagination.
😭 this is the sad reality
Nowadays, if you genuinely like "cinema", you are pretentious but if you watch content that everyone else is watching, you are a normal human being.
I have a feeling most people see making a distinction between a normal film and "cinema" as inherently pretentious.
You are pretentious bc you act that way. IDGAFF what you watch or don’t watch. Just stop telling ppl what to see or attacking them bc of what they like. My list of favorite films has changed in some ways than when I was a kid. Some films kept their position or were elevated and others were gone entirely. No one is telling you what to enjoy or not enjoy. You are doing that to yourself bc you care more about what they think of you than you think of yourself.
You're not pretentious for liking cinema. You're pretentious for looking down on people who enjoy mainstream movies.
liking cinema doesn't make a person pretentious. posting a selfie saying 'look what this important cinema I'm watching' does.
I’ve really been shocked by how people now refer to all art as content now. But then again art probably has a similar overly-materialistic etymology
Coming from someone who is in their mid twenties and loves cinema, one of the biggest issues I’ve had lately is people of my generation usually 15 to 25 years old are spending more and more time on social media for entertainment instead of watching cinema or reading books. And spending some time on social media isn’t bad, but imo when that’s mostly all you consume you’re training your brain to only take in short form content and you’re not challenging yourself. This leads to lazier and lazier behavior and shorter attention spans. And that just makes me sad.
Cinema must now unfortunately compete with TIk Tok. Like organic fruit competing with Jelly Beans and M&Ms.
Entertainment has been shifting from what was available to exchange information such as television and cinema also radio to internet and social media which is in our phone. Entertainment has changed into short-form, and being automatically choosing what is favorable for us because of our clicks and engagement thanks to algorithm. It has never been more passive for us to interact with such entertainment and it has changed from actively seeking into passively receiving it.
Content algorithms need to be regulated in the same way that gambling, nicotine, and alcohol were. Shortened attention spans, always chasing the next "high," low tolerance for displeasure...these are clear signs of addiction and need to be treated as such.
@loganastrup6870 they only engage in cinema and books that say nothing new
Rightly said, these people will only enjoy over the top senseless films without proper script.
I will never be ashamed of saying that most of my favorite movies are movies from Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, Miyazaki, Lumet, Coppola, Fellini, Lynch and Scorsese. Someone may say to me I'm an elitist snob, but so be it. Those movies are timeless and deeply important to me. It's not me being a snob and looking down on others who watch mainstream films, It's just what I enjoy the most, what I genuinely feel that those films are so great.
On the other hand, I also like some mainstream films like John Wick, The Batman, etc. Heck, I love Dragon Ball and that is mainstream as hell. What I'm frustrated is some people really look down on others who like "art" films, just let them enjoy things they like
I think you're really misinterpreting what they were saying. I believe there are many people who say only arthouse movies are worthwhile and these are the incredibly annoying people the videos at the beginning were referring to
@@NadiaSeesIt I believe the opposite is also true; that there are many people who mock others who enjoy arthouse movies. One of the footage in the intro of this video clearly mock a person who enjoys The Good, The Bad and The Ugly even though that movie is not even an arthouse. It's a mainstream film which came out in 1966 yet it is still a mainstream film through and through.
Annoying people exist on both sides. But mocking people who enjoy things because they genuinely enjoy it, not just to be an elitist snob is wrong.
@@NadiaSeesItThere's actually more people who mock those "art house" kinda films. In real life social circles i mean. Most film elitist are mainly online. I've met more people who think I'm pretentious, just for talking passionately about a movie (not even in an exaggerated way) only for someone to tell me "it's just entertainment bro, it's not that deep"
I've met more of those people than the "film elitist" you mention
@@samuel.jpg.1080p Good for you with Tarkovsky, I was watching stalker and I stop watching after 40 minutes, maybe he's not my cup of tea, lol, I love Lumet, Lang and Kubrick though
It's just backlash the equal and opposite reaction against the crowd who used to look down on the kind of films.
I've spent a lot of time watching video essays, and it's shockingly rare - maybe just because of the recommender or my own habits - that a video essay exposes me to a new way of thinking. Yours do that pretty consistently. You write these like you actually want people to sit and reflect on them, not just to passively consume something they already agree with in a slick audiovisual format. In these respects, I get out of your videos what I like getting out of written essays. Keep up the good work!
Reflection is most definitely both key and lock. I wish that humanity participated in it far more often. Unfortunately, it *does* require training, insight, work, silence, etc. Most are far too busy with the hustle and bustle of "busy-ness" to stop and think for even 3-6 meager moments.
Must give us pause.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
@@Novastar.SaberCombat And people nowadays struggle to admit they are wrong
so true! Only five minutes into the video and I was like, shit this is some really insightful stuff he's saying. So I opened my notes app and wrote down some things that resonated and gave me more understanding of the issue. Before I realized, I was already jotting down reflections of my own, making connections with other stuff I had been thinking about before, etc. That's what a good (video) essay does. Really appreciate this channel!
You've nailed it. When I see Tik Tok's talking about enjoying "fun" movies over black and white arthouse films, I wonder why they think so little of movies they find fun. Look at most of Spielberg's movies; they are pop culture juggernauts, but also revolutionized the industry and have a lot to say.
Because people actively look down on art with contempt. Even the stuff they like.
I try to strike a balance and "enjoy" everything from anime, to art house, to pop culture and vintage. For me there's value in all of it. Am I really in the minority on that?
It is also looks over the thousands of comedies made in black and white, Charlie Chaplin existed. Since cinema has existed, people have wanted to have fun and explore deep ideas, sometimes at the same time, shocking.
@@lkeke35 IKR like my top 20 favorite picks are a bit all over the place going from popular films like Planet Terror, Beetlejuice, The Elephant Man, Total Recall and Alien but also more culty/lesser known stuff like Mr. Nobody, Johnny Got His Gun, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Phantom of the Paradise and Balada Triste De Trompeta (aka The Last Circus).
Artsy French films can also be a lot of fun to watch, Delicatessen and Playtime are almost like live-action cartoons.
I know people hate snobs, but I feel like snobs would at least appreciate that I have an open mind and want to check out deep cut films, while those Tik Tokers would have a "DOES NOT COMPUTE" meltdown because I dare love both commercial and "artsier" stuff.
I wouldn't be surprised if by their standards The Elephant Man (*GASP!* Black and white!! Nooo!!!) and Alien are too "brainy and boring" if 2001 (which I love and is included in my top 20) and Good The Bad and the Ugly are "pretentious".
You've hit upon something here. Blockbusters and arty films don't have to be mutually exclusive. I think a lot of the filmmaking of studio big releases of late is falling victim to this, and we (the audience, review culture) seem shocked, over and over, when something popular actually tries to have its own voice.
I think a recent example is the surprise people had over the recent Shogun TV series. The surprise being that they could not predict what is usually predictable in these types of stories. Save the Cat has ruined audiences, to the point that NOT adhering to its advice is now compelling storytelling because we are so used to where the character and plot beats are supposed to pop up.
I have a well-meaning friend who keeps throwing away drafts of their novel because they're uncomfortable with the antagonist being too "problematic." Honestly I always kind of thought that was the point
I remember writing to my younger followers on Tumblr that it was okay to watch and even like "problematic" characters. That liking villains doesn't say anything about one's own identity. I don't think I was wrong in saying that. I've "liked" plenty of villains in my 5 decades of living, and didn't consider that it said anything about what kind of person I am or wanted to be.
You can hate a villain because of what they do. It’s what might make the book worth reading.
@@lkeke35 Bingo. One of my all-time favorite characters is V.M. Varga from season three of Fargo. Without getting into spoilers, he is an absolutely vile and reprehensible excuse for a human being, yet it's impossible to take your eyes off of him whenever he's on screen, he steals practically every scene he's in, and he is endlessly quotable (a big aspect of what makes him so memorable is the phenomenal performance of David Thewlis). But on the flip side, in reality I couldn't be less like that character. I'm extremely empathetic towards others, money and power aren't my top priorities, I believe in helping those in need, etc. Being a fan of a _fictional_ villainous character is in no way indicative of who you are or what you're like as a person. I'm also a fan of Michael Myers and the original Halloween, yet I have zero desire to actually hurt or kill anyone or see anyone actually get hurt or killed by a mask-wearing maniac who's wielding a knife.
Anyone who jumps to the conclusion that you "must be a bad person" simply because you enjoy a villainous character in a fictional work is an absolute idiot who isn't worth your time.
That’s where you can make very interesting villains, recently my brother got me to watch JJK and I found myself loving the disaster curses Jogo and Mahito. Jogo despite little screen time was extremely interesting with his philosophy and showing how his faction thinks and want in life. Mahito despite all the hate he gets is the sole reason why I love the character, like what your friend sees as bad in an antagonist I see it as the best thing you can do to the character when writing them which is precisely what makes Mahito a good villain.
Every circle begins with its end. Reflection is key.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
The barbie doll was a surprise hit back in the late 50s. Because marketers assumed that little girls wanted dolls that were basically just them, little girls. but , i think, it turned out that little girls had just as much passion and excitement for imagining, perhaps fantasizing, and acting out what it would be like to be a fully developed and flourishing adult, being the best version of their adult self, and maybe, lol, also having it all (a career and a family). But I guess it is true that the barbie was and always meant to be the “literally me”.
Atleast barbie tried tho.
You realize that the Barbie creator just stole the doll (from a German doll) and copied her one to one? The original manufacturer had no idea this was going in and Mattel later bought the original doll so they wouldn't get sued. Barbie has no message except that theft is alright
@@dontknowdocareNobody cares
It's much more enjoyable to relate to a character who's actually living the life you don't have. Tyler Durden's quote about why Narrator came up with him suites here well.
@@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer Some people do, because this subversion of reality and context is intentionally and purposely misleading. We live in a world of smoke and mirrors, it's enlightening to peek behind the curtains on the stage to see the faces of the frauds that play center on the stage.
I thought it was weird to hear about people relating to Joker in a positive way. For me he was relatable, but I took that as a _warning,_ not as a point of pride. The power of the movie for me was to show a part of myself that I'm uncomfortable with, and motivate me to find healthy ways to integrate it. If cautionary tales aren't relatable, they're not doing their job!
Probably because that’s the point, a lot of people feel trapped and when the only thing friend groups, family, society, or whatever social groups you’re a part of say to deal with it or be shamed until you do makes people like Joker very appealing because in a way he’s free unlike the people that relate to him.
@@def3ndr887 Sure we all feel that way more or less, but given humanity's history of revolutions, schisms, and movements, this is hardly some unique feature of the current era. "Joker" isn't just about a figure with relatable aspects, it's a full character that responds to that situation in a particular way and the movie explores that. Don't forget that this is the birth story of a really bad guy. It's not a guide for us to follow.
@@spejic1 that’s what makes this era disturbing and pushes the question of whether our society is doing enough to alleviate the majority of plights its people must endure, and if not will they learn or will a revolt be the only way to solve it.
@@def3ndr887 Yes, our society seems designed to increase loneliness and alienation because it is profitable.
It is a warning, but changing yourself still isn't the point in my not so humble opinion. A broken man was allowed to do horrible things because of a horrible system.
Even if you think I'm wrong, what is one to do when their act of self-defense (being repeatedly kicked on the ground is easily deadly btw) brought on by helping another is portrayed as a monstrous act?
My father liked westerns, a lot. When we were growing up, he and I (and sometimes my mom and/or sister) would sit together and watch Stagecoach, or True Grit, or High Plains Drifter.
The last thing we ever did together, as he lay on his deathbed, was watch The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Just... the best.
Not very relatable, though...
I have a similar relationship with my Great Uncle, he grew up with westerns, I went to his house, sat and watch whatever there were playing in Fox Classics, today he mostly watches action movies or some old western from 60 or 70 years ago.
I watched The Wild Bunch right after my grandfather passed, he recommended it to me on his deathbed. I relate.
Ah yes, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. I love the music composition, close-ups of characters and the chemistry both Blondie and Tuco has with one another although they’re frenemies in a sense, since they’re constantly stabbing each other’s backs
I'd add the outlaw Josie Wales to that list.
Is it so hard for people in those tiktoks to believe that people actually do enjoy the "pretentious cinema with foreign-sounding names" because they think they are good movies?
I hate that dismissive attitude so much! Flames on the side of my face!
snobs definitely exist. I've known a few pseudos who simply can't enjoy normal things, who always have to be 'different' because they think that liking popular stuff is beneath them.
but on the other side are people who only consume the latest mainstream trend that is spoonfed to them every month. Their entire existence revolves around consuming cheap, bland, commercialised 'content'
There has to be balance. We must find a world somewhere between reddit and tiktok.
"Breath, heaving breaths, heaving" 😉
@@luxinvictus9018 I always strive for that balance as much as possible. Movie fans, even the casual fans, deserve better than MovieTok
@@DonaldAMisc See you get it!
These people have been around the whole time. They just didn't have a virtually free way of spewing their mental diarrhea to millions of people at a time. I grew up in the 80s and 90s and at video rental stores 90% of people wanted whatever came out that week in the New Arrivals section. The thousands of VHS tapes in the middle of the store were almost always available because a small minority of people cared to rent anything old or classic.
Ouch, that first video clip hurt. Yes, actually 2001 is my favorite movie. I've watched it dozens of times. I know everything about it, it is a true masterpiece.
Correct.
Yea I mean they're classics that millions love for a reason far beyond just being fashionable, they're excellently made films!! Ofc they're going to pop up more often. I'm more annoyed by the commentator's take on it, then people typically listing big time classics. Like does he want a world where everyone says Uhh "Primer", "La Haine", Rocky Horror" "Mulholland Drive" All of which are still cult classics by any metric except perhaps Primer. It's just a dumb perspective and has no understanding of probability
I've never seen it because it is such a part of the zeitgeist that going back now and watching it seems pointless. I'm sure others feel the same way about Casablanca, but I don't think you can be a man without understanding Rick's dilemma.
@@unfgreen Watch for yourself and make up your own mind about it. Do you let others taste ice cream for you, too?
Preach!
I think it also provides an insight into modern society's psychological age. Like, my parents told me that they have memories of teenagers meeting up in groups to see Rain Man when it came out, and that they can't even imagine something like that happening now.
And to be clear, they're not just dismissing it as "Oh, kids these days bad." They have said, and I agree, that if you've been sold nothing but empty superhero and transformers movies your whole life, then that's obviously going to affect your development. And I think we're seeing the effects of that nowadays.
I remember a documentary years ago that examined how an over-abundance of choice paralysed decision-making. They did it with selling jams. In one version there were 50 different jam varieties; customers were so overwhelmed with choice that they didn't buy anything. As soon as they cut it to five choices, everyone bought it.
I didn't see the documentary you're talking about but I clearly remember seeing these statistics. It works for any streaming platform (that's why some end up scrolling for half an hour, and sometimes regret the film they picked up because they think there were so many others movies that would have been better), for the clothing industries (we use to have not more than 5 type of pants to try let's say, now we have... I don't even know, in just one shop, there's dozens of them). We really need to change the way we consume things in general.
This is pretty well known to psychologists.
This "relatability" trend is a direct response to our increasing isolation in everyday life.
Human connection is being sold back to us for a profit.
underrated comment
People want content instead of Cinema.
Content is more marketable than cinema and therefore more available for people to "want"
Most don’t even have the cultural context to know the difference.
I really woke up to truth huh.
Nah, people are just too used to being disappointed, to being treated like children. Humans still desperately, in their core, desire to be wowed, to be in awe, inspired, shaken, moved.
@@jmgonzalez4unfortunately not true for most.
I'm tired of missing out on problematic traits on characters. The fact that not even villains can have unforgivable crimes under their belt is absurd.
Unforgivable crimes are boring and unproblematic tough. They don’t make you think, you already know as a given that they are that type of flat villain
@@yucol5661 I'll just agree to disagree there, those kinds of villains can absolutely be fun.
Villains that will massacre entire villages but draw the line at bigotry are my favorite example of this.
@@JohnHolmes3.0 My favorite example is The Joker punching Red Skull after he realizes Skull is a Nazi. Cuz he's a villain, but he's an American God dammit.
@@yucol5661 The irony of this take is that this take itself shows a really flat view of what villains must be. There is no single formula for what makes a good villain. A good villain is exactly what the story needs it to be in order to justify the conflict. Many stories need a complex villain. Others need a pompous fool who uses and abuses with no redeeming qualities. Some movies need their villain to be a Lovecraftian abyss of evil/harm. Sauron and Joffery Baratheon are considered amazing villains and they were never explained or humanized. They just were, and that's exactly what their stories needed them to be.
What rekindled my passion for cinema is when I started collecting physical media again. When you are actively investing your time and money, you are more engaged in the product. There is also a much larger universe of films to explore with physical media, and that has led me to branch out way beyond my usual comfort zone with foreign films, independent filmmakers that i had no prior experience with, etc. When you mindlessly browse through streaming choices, it ends up being passive background noise.
Yes. There isn’t really a way to prove that you get more out of a film because you’ve bought it on physical media, but I believe that my engagement with the filmographies of my favorite directors is not superficial. There is inconvenience and persistence involved in getting their films on physical media.
Jonathan Rosenbaum has a book called ‘Placing Movies’. You literally place physical copies of your movies in a space in your home, but I feel that the effort involved in gathering a collection is another aspect of mentally placing a filmmaker and the meaning of their work in relation to yourself.
I can’t say that people who just stream or more likely pirate everything can’t equally effectively engage with and mentally inventory the content and meaning of the work of great filmmakers. Ultimately this topic leads to a meta-consideration of what are we looking to get out of watching movies anyway?
Sadly an impossible choice if you live in a thirdworld shithole.
But I really love movies so I just pirate em and just enjoy. From any period or genre. I engage with respect and sincerity.
The crazy thing about the whole "liking obscure movies to be seem smart" is that it actually teaches you to appreciate what you like and dont like and forces you to explore movies you otherwise would've ignored and before you know it, you have found some new movies to like. It's a phase and Im glad I went through it otherwise I wouldn't have discovered François Truffaut and I love his movies. Ironically enough, his colleague, Godard, accused him of being too commercial and not pushing cinema further after Truffaut released Day For Night which by today's standards would be considered pretentious even though it is very much a soap opera drama albeit with some meta layers as the subject matter concerns the production of a film.
Art is a reflection of society and our society is bleak.
Society is transitioning. We are in the teenage years of the age of information. Change can be long, awkward, and ugly but it doesn't mean the world is ending.
@@binaryvoid0101 The world IS ending, literally, from global warming.
I agree. Look at modernist (ie. from the school of modernism) architecture. Bleak. Look at music: soulless and digitized. Look at literature, either caked in identity politics or fluff. But I feel a Renaissance is on the way. Nowhere to go but up.
@christijanrobert1627 I really like what you said "a Renaissance is on the way". I've always been a pessimist about the futur (for the politics, the arts, the humankind, etc.), but with that little sentence, that made remind that the human species had been here for thousands of years, there's been a lot of different eras, and it wouldn't be a surprise that a new era, a new Renaissance, is coming in the next century. I'm hopeful that people will start realizing that corporations and politics don't care about us, but just the money we have in our pockets and will start to not care about them anymore.
@@jeannelagarde2489 Hope springs eternal. But yes, I firmly believe it. In Harold Bloom's book the Western Canon, a book that predicted much of the identity politics and tribal squabbling going on, he believes a new age of invention and inspiration is on the horizon. When the book was written in the late 90s, he mourned the academies in their bid to unseat Shakespeare for being 'a dead white European male'. Meanwhile, these days, people are becoming more aware of corporations trying to separate us from our money. I also think of a Simpson episode where the town is dealing with giant marketing mascots running amok. Lisa tells the people 'just don't look' at them (i.e. the more attention they gain, the stronger they become and the more harm they can do). I say the same with films that do not appeal to our humanity. Don't watch them.
i took my aunt and uncle to a screening of Dr Strangelove in the theatre. when the movie was over my aunt said it was one of the worst movies she’s ever seen in her entire life. i noticed about half way through it she gave up on the movie and started periodically checking her phone for the remainder of the movie. she said the scenes went on way longer than they should have and it was really stupid, that’s why she didn’t like it. i asked her what she thought of the production design, she said she didn’t see anything great about it. then she went on to ask what General Ripper and Mandrake’s characters had to do with the plot, she wasn’t paying attention, she then refused to believe that it’s one of my favourite films of all time (hence my screen name). it was such a frustrating night. she’s in her early 40’s btw.
What I hate is that people are unwilling to engage. Dislike it by all means, hate it by all means but atleast engage with the work and have genuine thoughtful reasoning. As soon as you name something "pretentious" as a favourite, they dont even want to engage with all the possible reasons you enjoy it and the places in which you find meaning in the work, which would consequently open them up to a broader perspective, it doesn't mean they have to like it once you explain. But having two opposing views is literally the only way can say they've looked at something wholeistically, which is a dying trait in the modern world.
WTF??? Dr. Strangelove is one of Kubrick's most accesible movies, maybe even more than 2001, the movie is not even that long or difficult to understand. But I get your frustration, one night I sat to watch it with my Mom, she got the context of when it was made, appreciated the photography and set design, just didn't thought it was funny, maybe if she watched it dubbed in spanish she would have laughed (we're latinos, american and british comedy is usually considered cold), it also happens that she isn't a fan of Peter Sellers (yes we watched The Pink Panther and I love it), nothing against George C. Scott tho, she likes him as Patton.
Btw, if you're wondering, we have watched Kubrick's filmography together, her favorites are Barry Lyndon (she loves period dramas) and The Shining (saw it back when it came out).
@@lindamalote1719 really agree on this. You can criticize all you want but please engage with the work, watch it fully and form your opinions. It's so bizarre, it's as if a person goes to a restaurant which serve a certain dish and that person don't want to eat the dish but then they complain about the dish. Wtf
There's one rule I'm imposing myself at cinema and it's to never check my phone during the movie. For respect for the people behind the movie, for the spectators who don't want to see a flashing screen in the middle of the room, but also because I want to be able to say when I get out, I loved/liked/disliked/hated the movie. There's other rules I'm imposing myself at cinema, but the phone is a big no-no. And I will always hate people who take it out during a screening to check it all the time (I can accept one time or two, if the light is to a minimum).
@@jeannelagarde2489I have the same rule, especially for when I see something in theaters. I think it’s disrespectful to the people around me and the people who worked on the film. Also I might miss something if I tune out. It’s fine if people don’t want to watch something that challenges them in uncomfortable ways, but it is insane that they then act like everyone who does enjoy films like these are lying or trying too hard.
5:35 It's called tokenism. Everybody seem to have forgotten that word exists, yet it describes perfectly what's been going on lately
I think people are living isolated lives in front of screens all day. They’re craving human connection. A very basic human need. When basic needs aren’t met, man has little mental space for anything more complex. I’m guessing this relatability characteristic of current movies is a response to that. People want to feel less alone and if they see a character that they can project their own feelings on…the better. Complex characters would get in the way of that goal.
One term popping up in discussions around social media is "Main Character Syndrome," a form of narcissistic self-centeredness that people have where they almost seem to think of themselves as a main character is one of these movies, never getting seriously challenged and always succeeding. These people then get upset when the world doesn't align with their own heroes journey.
I absolutely hate it when people imply that other people only like a niche or demanding piece of art because it makes them appear smart or cultured. It’s just as bad as saying people only like a mainstream commercial piece of media because they are mindless and susceptible to pandering. No one is obligated to enjoy anything, regardless of critical, scholarly, or popular consensus. But to imply that someone is lying about their opinion for status or something smacks of arrogance and narrow mindedness. Those tiktokers at the start of the video are operating at the same level as the pretentious, elitist cinephiles they are complaining about. The only difference is that they are proud to lick the boots of major media corporations by consuming nothing but commercial cinema and demonizing those who don’t.
There's room to enjoy all of it. (I'm partial to films from the 70s.)When I review or analyze movies, I make no distinction between arthouse cinema and commercial projects. The criteria for me is: Did I enjoy it? Did it engage me? Was I moved? Entertained? And I always make a point to tell my followers that just because I liked something doesn't mean they have to. Just because I hated it doesn't mean they can't like it. (Even the worse film is someone's favorite somewhere. I've loved plenty of movies other people hated.)
The idea that someone claims to like something just to impress other people is a truly bizarre concept to me.
Yeah the claim that people are only liking media to appear smart or cultured is just...not a thing that really exists. I honestly think it's an anti-intellectualism bent, because the assumption is that if you don't enjoy this piece of media; it's an attack on me. It's why I'd see basic film fans on tiktok slam against people's Top 4 Letterboxd for having a foreign film or the geeks who hate The BFI's "Sight and Sound Top Movies List" because it doesn't have a Pixar film or an MCU film. Maybe people...actually like those movies for a reason; but the internet rewards pessimism, outrage, and cynicism.
@@MayorOfEarth79 people mock others for wanting villains that are pure evil, unforgivable, irredeemable saying those villains are boring, lack depth, childish, cartoonish, one-note, soulless, only for kids; they have very infantalizing and condescending attitudes
Literally happening with booktok rn. You have an issue with intense corn and bad writing being sensationlaised and selling? You're a hater and a pretentious poc.
@@Seasonal-Shadow_4674Yes but when the trend is to glorify and identify with villains instead of having "I understand why some could go that way but it isn't a path that someone should follow" is simply insane.
It’s just so nice to have a nuanced, deep, intelligent, philosophical, and psychological exploration into movies and mind and culture. Thank you. I feel well fed by a nourishing and original meal.
Level one: My favourite movie is the Avengers!
Level five: My favourite movie is the Bicycle Thief!
Level 99: My favourite movie is Maniac Cop 2
Level 1098: CADDYSHACK II is better than CADDYSHACK.
You really got it
I friend of mine called me "pretentious" because i like Die Hard...DUDE, IT'S AN ACTION FILM FROM 1988, AN ACTION FILM.
Your friend is odd.
The argument here is less than the sum of it's parts. I agree with Part 3 wholeheartedly but not with the idea that selling relatability is a new thing or that it's bad. Did we forget that the 90s and 2000s were the height of the romcom genre when 10-20 of them would come out every year with the same basic structure baked into some half-cocked conciet about falling in love with your best friend, your housekeeper, or the girl next door. Also, isn't the cinematic equivalent of empty calories what dominated the cineplex during that same time? Finally, films have also always been about moral righteousness, see: Dr. Strangelove or A Clockwork Orange or any of the 40+ movies about the Vietnam War.
And he forgets that Hollywood has always been an industry that makes what makes money. It's always been that way since Hollywood was born. I mean, the wizard of Oz isn't an ambiguous tale of the complexiiof the human being
@@adolfodominguez1857 absolutely! Challenging cinematic masterpieces like The Santa Clause, The Flintstones
and Dumb and Dumber were among the highest grossing movies of 1994
@adolfodominguez1857 he didn't say films are a business, but rather, there has been a change in how we consume media in a way that has harmed our ability to perceive and discuss the artform.
Maybe I'm just getting older but I don't enjoy movies like I used to. They've become a chore to sit through. I'm not sure why.
Entertainment overload and a lack of hope for the future. The medicine against it is to engage in physical and social activities.
Same here but I don't see it as a loss. Nothing lasts forever. But the good movies can be rewatched, like rereading a good book.
@@johnpeterson2987 Every single new movie? Of every genre and language?
Every movie seems to need to hit the 2.5 hour mark, and rarely does the runtime ever feel justified.
Test it. Test if this is you or modern Hollywood cinema. Watch something from 60's. Or from different country. Father Goose was breakthrough from me. I would never thought I would watch romantic comedy with such interest. Rear Window made me feel cozy. Midnight Runners from Korea reminded me how I liked simple adventure movies with sprinkle of humor and action.
This is a challenging argument that I believe demands additonal debate. Barbie was comfort food, but there's plenty of comfort food in the 80s. People still showed up for a 3-hour biopic in Oppenheimer. The Boy and the Heron was a big opening for a slowly-moving fantasy. I don't feel Cinema is dead, it's just changing. I do think people are thirsty for challenging stories, but they're tough to find in a sea of data. I do watch videos like this to find gems like The Settlers.
Barbie was boring, silly in an unfunny manner, and its political messaging was mindless preaching (the fact anyone "related" to that speech just speaks to the abysmal state of our society in terms of any intellectual and emotional capacity). Oppenheimer was marketed like crazy and while the cinematography was good (though mostly the same cliche style that screams Oscar bait rather than actual love of the craft) it was also full of dumb shit like a needless sex scene, a failure to show the actual aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the impact the bomb had on the people it hit and the world at large, generally an over obsession with the person of Oppenheimer (or rather movie characterization which was mostly uninteresting) rather than his role in the world and an over obsession with the Manhattan project in the least interesting manner possible. It also did not seriously question any of the myths and narratives of WWII or the Cold War despite flirting with doing so.
@@josecarlosmoreno9731 if people related to it then they related to it. You passing judgement on it doesn't make it any less real for those people
I was looking for this comment. I agree that it’s a challenging argument and I don’t like how decisive the comments are. They claim to love cinema and then don’t bring anything but agreement to the table.
This video has rubbed me the wrong way. I went in excited to hear the point being made because I love both comfort and cinematic media but now I’m struggling to finish it because every point that has been made has sparked some from of disagreement from me.
It all depends on who the comfort was for. I doubt Barbie was comfort for ultra conservatives. Same as how movies with sexist depictions of women from back in the day will not be comfort food for many women today while it could go over some other people's head completely. It really depends on the kind of group you belong to and what kind of person you are, lol. For me Oppenheimer was more comfort food than Barbie since I knew it was based on real events, it created a kind of "you know what's gonna happen/there will be no accidents happening in this particular scene" and what happens happens because it happened this way in real life, and because of being a huge physics nerd it was what I enjoyed and knew. With Barbie, I was more stressed out with the plot and engaged in a way that I wanted the characters to overcome the struggles between the genders, I really was curious what solution they'd choose. It was also something closer to real life for me, so the struggles actually felt very relatable at time and it got me thinking about our world and my own life, some views being challenged.
The thing is, as long as we keep mentally challenging movies and feel good movies, or both of these qualities within one movie, nothing is wrong with these kinds of movies because you can always go and watch the other type. I think only one kind or only the other kind being produced would both kind of suck.
@@josecarlosmoreno9731 "Oppenheimer was marketed like crazy and while the cinematography was good (though mostly the same cliche style that screams Oscar bait rather than actual love of the craft) it was also full of dumb shit like a needless sex scene, a failure to show the actual aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the impact the bomb had on the people it hit and the world at large, generally an over obsession with the person of Oppenheimer (or rather movie characterization which was mostly uninteresting) rather than his role in the world and an over obsession with the Manhattan project in the least interesting manner possible. It also did not seriously question any of the myths and narratives of WWII or the Cold War despite flirting with doing so."
That's because the film is called Oppenheimer, it's about Oppenheimer, it's not called "the atomic bomb that ended WWII and changed history" dumbass. It's every bit a character study as one of Nolan's earliest films like Memento.
I feel increasingly frustrated with contemporary cinema. Of course, there are exceptions in mainstream cinema, and there are many good things to find outside of it as well. But over time, I find myself retreating more and more to the past, in search of art and beauty, to the great classics and masters.
I think this collective discomfort around modern cinema can be attributed to the natural growing pains of studios adapting to cultural change:
Older classics had protagonists and audiences that were mainly straight white males; therefore, the story didn't require the heavy exposition and thus the commodification of this demographic. Today, studios are willing to include marginalized identities BUT under the condition that they are commodified and thus made easily consumable by an audience that is still mainly straight, white, and male.
Ambiguity and nuance in fiction can only be appreciated through narrative fluency and insight. Protagonists from marginalized groups in big budget studio films are made reductive because the average movie goer, frankly, see these groups in a reductive way and does not possess the cultural fluency and insight needed to appreciate the cultural nuances that have always existed within these groups.
@@binaryvoid0101 I think it’s not just a matter of gender or ethnicity. Fortunately today we have more diversity (although sometimes it’s fictitious and utterly hypocritical), but seeing it that way is very reductionist to understand the problem. That discourse is concerned exclusively with content as the only issue, leaving form simply as a shell. And in art, form is everything. I consider myself to be completely open to the narrative placing me in an ideologically unfamiliar place for the sake of art. I am an atheist, and the religiosity in Ordet moves me. I am straight, and most of my favorite romantic movies are queer. I consider myself politically left-leaning and enjoy the works of conservative right-wing authors like John Ford or Clint Eastwood. I am Latin American, and the sometimes exaggerated nationalism of American cinema doesn't bother me if it has an honest place in the narrative. And I could go on with many things that personally do not represent me at all… but for a moment, thanks to the power of art, they can reach me emotionally.
The problem with much of today's cinema logic is that it ends up becoming just content, quick consumption, without room for reflection, metaphor, or confronting ideas we disagree with. It turns us into passive spectators instead of active and engaged participants in art.
Exemplary (yet unknown) creators abound, but they'd rarely be recognized because they're not rich, powerful, influential, popular, etc. That's just how society functions. Kathleen Kennedy and Bob Iger are considered to be Gods, but it isn't because they have ethics, creativity, insight, storytelling skills, or passion. Reflection is key.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
I find myself watching Turner Classic Movies more often & buying blu rays from boutique labels versus going to the theater & consuming stuff on streaming. The multiplex is not offering enough variety.
As someone who interns at Film Threat, the fight against woke ideology is more about how it forces out those who’ve been in the industry (see the D-Files entry on veteran animators being pushed out of Disney) in favor of feeding an agenda that favors “diversity” for superficial PR. At the same time, the woke ideology lessens more nuanced stories in mainstream cinema in favor of hyping an overly self important message.
@@licantropo86 I could not agree with you more.
Your point about "neoliberal individualisation" felt like a breath of fresh air. You seem to know your history! A lot of people are unaware of the massive cultural shift that occured in the late 1970s to the point that they have so deeply internalized a hyper-individualist mindset. Every experience or act of consumption must be tailored to one's personal preferences/sensibilities, no matter how nonsensical doing so might be.
Colour-coded garden shears is a good example! People actually think that life is improved by having the option to personalise a basic garden tool...
Bradbury saw this coming. He wrote about this specifically in Fahrenheit 451
Buying wall tv to allow big brother to be omnipresent
@@alexandrebeaudry8377 Big Brother? You're thinking of a different book.
@TondersWonders I know.... It was meant more as an expression of the omnipresent of the government in F451.
The big difference from 1984 is that they choose to have tv surrounding them all the time. It represents better our reality.
This video reminds me of “Why is Fast & Furious so Popular in China” from Accented Cinema. But a less bleak lol
I think what's lacking most of all is the willing tot ake risks both by studios and by directors. A very similar thing is happening in the gaming world, where studios and devs just re-release over and over the same games or very similar games that are empty copies of what vame before because it worked, and they don't want to take risks with new ideas and they try to appeal to the widest possible audience, which can't give a proper deep story and mechanics.
This is a good point.
2001 A Space Odyssey is a seminal movie. It doesn't flow the way we expect entertainment to flow in this day and age, but it was an excellently written story incorporating what was known at the time about what the realities of living in space would be like. It has influenced our culture in so many ways as well, from how it's plot has inspired countless other sci-fi movies such as Interstellar, to the way it presented AI. I genuinely don't understand how someone could sit and watch that movie and not be interested in it. It is still the best space movie.
These are the same people that probably thought Blade Runner 2049 was boring... The Avengers super hero movie Instagram and tik tok age of entertainment has completely ruined so much big budget entertainment. It's concerning, because I think big budget movies with some kind of subtle underlying artwork, and metaphor like Titanic, Blade Runner (old or new version), 2001 A Space Odyssey, even Oppenheimer, are really important for cultural development. People spending more and more of their entertainment hours on mindless cheap thrills makes our civilization dumber and less thoughtful of other people's experiences.
I can't say that I cared for 2001 A Space Odyssey when I saw it originally on the big screen. I found 2001 A Space Odyssey visually stunning and engaging, however it did not capture my fancy as I did not understand the story at all. Only after I read both Arthur C. Clarke's short story, "The Sentinel" and the book, which I enjoyed immensely, did the movie, which I re-watched, finally make sense. Ever since that experience 40+ years ago, I have recommended to anyone interested in watching 2001, to read the book first.
@@amberhawke I agree wholeheartedly, the book is a better experience.
The movie never appealed to me and I didn't understand why until I read the book. Stanley Kubrick's movies tend to be quite pessimistic which doesn't fit with the fantastic ideas that Arthur C. Clarke is proposing.
Some people just aren't interested in sci-fi.
"Something that late-stage capitalism does very well is incorporate critiques into itself." Disco Elysium moment.
Except hasn’t it been late stage capitalism for the last hundred years?
@@jasonkatz4430 "Late state capitalism" doesn't mean the state of capitalism near the end of its existence, like (say) Marx predicted. It means the modern unmockable, unsatirizable form of capitalism that has perfected itself. It will always be late stage capitalism. Forever.
@@jasonkatz4430 Most of the people who use that phrase haven't even read the books it's from or understand the concept. Hell, the vast majority of people who criticize capitalism don't understand what capitalism is (because to do so they would have to turn against the parts of capitalism they like, being among the more privileged sections of the imperial core).
However, the end of capitalism is currently a possibility, but the next stage won't be socialism/communism, it'll be a new economic form that has yet to be understood or studied but is apparent in its current creation. It'll be some type of industrial manorialism and feudalism politically, where firms take on the role of political units like counties, duchies, and kingdoms used to, being simply administrative partitions that became independent after the fall of Western Rome. Whereas before land was the main resource to be inherited and taxed, in the future it will include industries, natural resources, and possibly even segments of the labor pool. The main political actors then will once again be the richest families (rather than states and political parties).
The ignorant might still call it capitalism for a long time, but if markets, wage labor and profits are no longer the main economic drivers because all markets have been monopolized, wage labor is secondary to welfare, and profits are less important than market share, it's not actually capitalism anymore.
@@spejic1 I like your definition better than this one in a recent article by Erika Rasure: "The term "late-stage capitalism" got its name from the idea that the current phase of capitalism is the final, often most exploitative and unsustainable, stage before a significant change or collapse."
@@unfgreen
It's not a stage, it's simply corruption. Capitalism works because of competition, but when pseudo-monopolies start to form, the competition is over. With a little bit of regulation, as seen in Europe, it functions just fine.
I think more and more people have truly lost the ability to objectively analyze media based on its merits and rather go with their emotional reaction on weather it is 'good' or 'bad' when in reality they are just commenting on weather or not the movie as 'for them' or not. There are plenty of media I personally like and will defend form undo criticism while being able to concede where it might have failed as a project over all. There are also plenty of films that I don't like but am able to separate myself from my personal reaction in order to praise it while being able to articulate what I did not like about it. Many people these days rather then having a civil discussion will just say 'it's not that deep' or 'you don't get it' when faced with Good Faith criticism which greatly saddens me because for me it's speaks to a shallow engagement with the work as a whole.
This
I think a missing part in this is sheer exhaustion. Things I want to engage with, but it will require full concentration, which I don't have the energy to do (cue the number of hours worked compared to previous generations).
The effect is rather much sleepwalking, where only surface level understanding or overt themes makes it past the haze.
Hence critiques will only be impressions at best. Generation Sleep.
Trying to find objective quality in art is missing the point of art. I think that can also create a culture where pretty rubbish movies get praise for being important and incredibly well crafted movies gets dismissed as "dumb fun".
Just don't dismiss everything that's not up your alley as too pretentious really believe that they enjoy the things they enjoy.
@@PauLtus_B I disagree that there is no way to objectively analyze a work. I can disagree with a theme or message of a work while still being able to comment on how that theme was conveyed or explored and weather or not structural elements of the story helped or hindered how it conveyed certain elements, regardless of if it spoke to me on a personal level. I also firmly believe that people can enjoy what they want I just think they ought to be able to explain why (which can be 'trivial' or personal and that's ok!), without encouraging them to turn their brains off for the sake of just being entertained.
(as an aside I think alot of that reaction can come from trying to explain to people who don't understand or don't want to understand our perspective which can be extremely frustrating but I think we do ourselves a massive disservice to give up on the project of analysis and self-refection as a whole.)
@@MyName-rx4jd
"I can disagree with a theme or message of a work while still being able to comment on how that theme was conveyed or explored and weather or not structural elements of the story helped or hindered how it conveyed certain elements, regardless of if it spoke to me on a personal level."
But whether it was an effective method to convey this theme will also be subjective. It can also be subjective what the theme even is.
I also really hate the absolutely incurious attitude about art and I love analyzing art. I really loathe the people who just respond to good analysis with "who cares as long as it made me feel thing" but then don't realise that all that analysis explains "why thing was felt". But when making claims of objectivity I think we end up forgetting why we interact with art in the first place. Our feelings about a piece of art is what gives it value, to try to find value beyond that kinda misses the point. If a piece of art is "objectively good" but no one gets anything out of it, then how can it be considered a good piece of art.
"as an aside I think alot of that reaction can come from trying to explain to people who don't understand or don't want to understand our perspective which can be extremely frustrating but I think we do ourselves a massive disservice to give up on the project of analysis and self-refection as a whole.)"
Not willing to understand is what I think is the one true problem here. It's either people who think that thinking through a piece of art is going to ruin the experience, or people who just want to prove that their opinion is objectively right (mostly people upset about a follow up to the blockbuster that has been their favorite since they were 12) claiming absolute knowledge about how movies should make and making really bad arguments.
I really like seeing other people's perspectives and I have seen good readings on movies that completely contradict each other but I still thought both were well argued and interesting.
I'm 38, but as a child the "man w/ no name" trilogy was legitimately my favorite. (Fistful of $$$'s/for a few dollars more/good the bad & the ugly)
Don’t get me wrong, the good the bad and the ugly is decent, but a bit overrated I think. But a few dollars more is incredible for me
Hero's journeys are pretty awesome. The "blank slate" character quickly grows into its own personality, but it allows an audience to go on the adventure WITH them (or "as" them) just as rapidly. However... even Marty McFly, Frodo, Luke, Neo, Harry, and many others made their own choices, totally independent of any given audience's.
You are NOT the writer. They are not catering to *your* version of their story... they've written it so that you understand THEIRS. Reflection is key.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
@edengostelow577 for a few dollars more is the best of the three, I was just saying that hipster made it out like you have to be a psuedo-intellectual to love t.g.t.b.&.t.u. but I loved when I was 12. That's all.
@@williamdixon-gk2skright!? Like the film has one of the most recognisable soundtracks, with one of the most iconic actors, in one of the most popular film genres to have existed. Not exactly a hidden gem
@edengostelow577 great point. Even if you don't know the source, that iconic score has been copied a million times. It is THEE soundtrack that instantly means "wild west showdown." Everyone knows it.
Dude, those first few clips triggered a fight or flight response in me.
Same, and I don't know how to fly so...
Barbie is the most excited I've been for a mainstream film in years, get its name out of your mouth. Its homages speak with a bullhorn of its love for cinema. It HAS a message worth telling.
A message been told since ten years ago with the deepness of ten years ago. Do me a favor and go love the movie, if it makes you happy, but it was never a message "worth telling" when it's the default message.
@@vicentecollao2288 Except it's not. Point me in the direction of another movie that cares simultaneously about the problems facing both women and men. Barbie apologizing to Ken for treating him disposably isn't anything girl boss feminism in media has allowed. The fact that it pissed off two camps by "not being feminist enough" and "man-hating" is why I'm so obsessed with it. Like any necessary movie, it ruffled feathers.
Exactly, the scene where Barbie realizes she wants to be the creator and not the creation hit so hard as a female creative, I know that one came from Greta’s heart
@@peonylarkspur645 I think it's beautiful in a way the biggest films used to be but haven't been in a long time, and wanting to play contrarian about it just because it was massive comes across as dismissing what's so clearly there. It's women getting their own Truman Show but even that is just scraping the surface.
You can appreciate complex, difficult films that require intellectual work and engagement while also appreciating "easier to consume" films that offer subtle, sensitively acted, and heartbreaking storytelling. They are two different forms of art that achieve different purposes - it's not that complicated. The essay this video references calls out Close and The Whale, which are both incredible and life-changing films, just because they are not the difficult films that the author prefers.
This right here!
This is the kind of balance we need
Also which author are you referring to? Caitlin Quinlan?
@@laffycade3151 Yes
@@purekinema I agree even more with you then, although the article is interesting enough, it feels too reductive of those movies and honestly a little pretentious. Also I believe relatability can be used in the right way to invite the viewer and get them comfortable so as to later challenge them. This way the viewer can be more inviting to confrontation. Relatability doesn't have to be the end point. Wish the author was more nuanced on her piece and not hold her own standards for a good storytelling as the only way.
@@laffycade3151 Yes, boiling these movies down to "relatability" misses almost everything they are trying to say and that people have said about them. Also, it is strange that they bring up The Whale as a film about relatability and self-recognition - I doubt many people's main takeaway from that movie is how much they relate to Charlie. Sure, it and the other movies they've mentioned may not be particularly intellectually challenging, but that's not inherently a bad thing - every film is aiming for something different.
I like listening and reading all opinions on films. It’s the engagement we are lacking which is why I like the video.
I disagree with your assessment of reacting against wokeness. To take some low-hanging fruit examples, Disney’s Andor was *SCREAMINGLY* pro-Communist and leaned heavily into Lucas’ explicit intent to frame the Rebellion as the Viet-Cong analog and therefore as the good guys. It also - if not centered, then at least heavily featured - a lesbian relationship. People who hate The Acolyte also almost always love Andor. No one is afraid of challenging ideas from across the political aisle. What is being reacted against is the idea that transgression, representation, and subversion are intrinsically acceptable substitutes for telling a compelling story. “Wokeness” is lazy in a way that the “moralism” isn’t quite in that it takes *any* criticism as a sign that it is right and good. In Disney’s mind, if no one liked or watched The Acolyte it’s because it told a great transgressive story in the exact same way that Andor was a “failure,” and that’s not true at all.
Interesting perspective on Andor. I have not yet seen it. I tend to stay clear of Star Wars. The trilogy that began with The Phantom Menace didn't quite capture me. However, in the future, should I view Andor, I will keep your assessment in mind. Pretty fascinating, especially as I am not exactly smitten with the scourge of Communism or the people without the foresight to research its death toll in this world, people who extol slogans with empty virtue. (They say Marx had Satanist leanings.)
He did address this earlier in the video by talking about the commodification of representation in films.
Pretentious moment here: My favorite movie is Lawrence of Arabia. But hear me out.
The movie spoke to me; not the character. At first I thought he did, but it turns out Lawrence is literally NOT me. It argues against the notion that Lawrence was good and righteous and won in the end. No. The story breaks Lawrence while also making him a legend, and you understand how it happened. You can see glimmers of how you might do the same thing in Lawrence's position, and also definitely not in others. And that's the greatness of the storytelling. Also, doesn't hurt that it is one of the most spectacular achievements in cinema from a technical side.
Edit: And to note the part in this video about giving time to a movie and all that, I was talking to my 17-year-old nephew recently about movies. He's really, really into cinema and '60s and '70s music right now. It seems to be a genuine exploration of art. But when I said I love Lawrence of Arabia, he said he hadn't seen it, because, "Isn't it, like, super long?" When I pointed out that he has had no problem bingeing six hours of a TV show, it gave him pause. But not really. It is still perceived as a different use of screen time.
Great take, sublime movie. Immerses you in its world like no other. Yet, in many modern senses, it is problematic. For a film set in Arabia there are next to no Arab actors playing names characters. Instead they use brownface. When I tell some people it’s one of my favourites I get called a racist, which is a fair knee jerk response. Why would I love a film with racist depictions unless I agree with those depictions? People seem to have forgotten that no piece of art is perfect, every one is influenced by the time and place it was created in, and every one has something good or bad to be praised or learned from respectively.
I too love that movie despite it being "problematic (white savior issue). A lot of younger people like to point out a movie's problems as a reason to not like that movie, but I don't think like that. You can see a movie has some issue and still love it, and critiquing a movie doesn't just mean pointing out just it's negative aspects.
@@lkeke35id enjoy hearing why thats problematic exactly
I don’t think your love for Lawrence of Arabia should be pretentious at all!
There's a documentary series on Netflix called "Voir", one of the chapters spoke about unlikable characters, which included Lawrence of Arabia and Michael Corleone.
It's sad that as a society we no longer nurture creativity, curiosity, new ideas, and stepping outside of our comfort zones - in films, but also other forms of art. Part of that is algorithms, but a lot of it is people just becoming intellectually lazier in the ironically-named "Information Age" too. Ask anyone the you meet the last time they read a serious book and that gives you a great idea of where we're at societally.
Cynicism is easy. Meet some cooler people. Don’t let your little bubble of a life define your perspective of the average person. You’re no better than them.
The problem is not the people so much as companies needing to grow every year to please share holders and thus making media that appeals to the widest demographic possible. It trains people to expect all mainstream art to be instantly gratifying and that to be the norm.
@@braelhawke2189 The decay of this world always traces back to the stock market.
I would ask what is a “serious book” supposed to be
We are definitely post-information age now. Idk what I'd call it, but this era is something different for sure.
I think you're missing the broader context of the entertainment industry to make a philosophical point that greatly undermines your argument and makes you lose credibility here. You say that "conservative" movie reviewers are complaining about DEI and "woke" but you also conveniently fail to add that like you mention earlier with the examples of Barbie and other movies - the industry is marketing and incentivizing the films to be this way intentionally. Everything you complain about is epitomized by that fact. For example as of 2023, to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, films must meet a certain criteria for DEI. This completely undermines your point and you come off as biased while presenting yourself as trying to be objective, which makes your argument irrational.
For the people saying representation needs to be forced because "marginalized" people have not been represented, this is patently and demonstrably false. Movies have been "diverse" for decades, with many actors and actresses being nominated for and WINNING awards, for their portrayals of characters in films that had nothing to do with social or political or otherwise "literally me" or "representative" movies. Just from memory Denzel Washington has been nominated for Best Actor half a dozen times in the last few decades. The Fast & Furious series has had diversity since the beginning and doesn't need to make a social or racial point to show that. Sidney Poitier won in 1963. Halle Berry in Monster's Ball 20+ years ago and thanked other black actresses that came before her - that's great, and highlights the point that LSOO is *trying* to make - that her role in the movie is way more complex than her race. These portrayals and films didn't need to make cheap lines to market the movie - When LSOO tries to make his clumsy point, he shows a clip of No Time To Die with Lashana Lynch who in the trailer says "Stay in your lane" This line was cut from the movie because it was divisive and intentionally provocative in line with meta social and racial narratives that have invaded the industry like cancer.
In the American and British film industries in the 20th century, of course these films are going to have majority white representation, which has naturally changed with demographics - but for decades now movies have been VERY inclusive, without industry/laws mandating that, which has changed in recent years like the Oscars. Does anyone complain that Bollywood productions feature Indian protagonists that sometimes make villains white like in "RRR"? No. The problem now, is like LSOO mentions, new films are trying to be "literally me" but for DEI reasons, and the films become shallow and one note.
Ask yourself why can males of all races and ages identify with Goku or Vegeta - blonde haired blue eyed "aryan" warriors (created by Japanese artists) since the 1980's, but now Ariel from the Little Mermaid should be race changed to being black?
Both Goku & Vegeta have dark hair and are Saiyans who aren't real, also Mermaids don't exist either.
I reckon you are the one making a biased, irrational argument, while presenting yourself as trying to be objective...
@@S00NERD0G "Who is blonde Goku?
The Super Saiyan form spared the trouble of coloring Goku's hair all the time for the standard black-and-white manga pages. This was the reason for the Super Saiyan form having blonde hair, because it was easier to draw for Toriyama's assistant who spent a lot of time blacking in Goku's hair."
"For example as of 2023, to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, films must meet a certain criteria for DEI."
Bitch, you know Oppenheimer won right? It's the most dudes on dudes movie in recent memory. You don't actually care about film, you just want to not think about real life stuff getting in the way of your entertainment.
@@S00NERD0Gand races aren't real
@@MayorOfEarth79ugly misandry
Honestly, more and more people are simply unable or unwilling to allow art of any kind to effect them. That takes a certain openness and vulnerability. Most prefer to be closed and invulnerable. It's easier that way.
33:25 In defense of using cinema as comfort, sometimes it is nice to watch an unchallenging sitcom to relax to with a loved one.
There is still artistic and emotional merit to making something refreshing. Episodic comedies have been largely replaced with serialized shows to be binge watched and examined. Sometimes having a problem be resolved in 15 or 30 minutes is good enough.
Absolutely. It is possible to both immerse yourself in movies and enjoy comfort entertainment. I frequently put Friends or Blackadder on while I'm doing something else, or maybe when I'm exhausted from work and don't want to think for a while. I even have comfort movies, and am particularly fond of disaster movies like 2012 for this purpose. Once I'm recharged or my chores are done, I settle down with a warm drink and watch an immersive and epic film.
Different art has different objectives. I'm reminded of being a teenager into club-oriented dance music and people would say it was rubbish because "you can't listen to it outside of a club," to which I replied, "you're missing the point. That's exactly what it's for, and people enjoy dancing to it, or maybe listen to it in the gym or while driving, and therefore it is working as intended and therefore good." You can't compare it to an introspective prog metal album that you listen to at home when you're high. They have very different objectives!
I like that one of the Fight Club scenes you used was Bob's pants falling down.
His name is Robert Paulson
His name is Robert Paulson.
Bob Paulson?! Good guy, had bitch tits. Wish he was still around!
His name is Robert Paulson
His name is Pobert Raulson
I also love how Rogert Ebert described movie as "machine that generates empathy". It really nails why many film I enjoy make me relate to characters with experience I'll never come close to or actions I'll never agree upon. Relatability shouldn't be treated as sameness to someone, but an opportunity to understand that someone so different can share the same human emotions as us.
My favorite movies I’ve seen this month are In the Mood for Love, La Chimera, and Monster. And tonight I’m going to see Jaws in theaters for the first time. I am in the phase of seeing so many movies for the first time and I’m experiencing so much awe and continually exploring new directors and I’m having a great time.
In general I'm not a fan of propaganda, which is what I consider movies or tv shows that forget story-telling and competent film-making form in favor of social messaging. A lot of the "representation obsession" is simply social messaging propaganda. When story-telling is done properly--when filmmaking is done properly--the audience doesn't care about representation.
Agree, Disney is very guilty of this and doesn't understand what they're doing wrong. I think there is definitely a crowd that just cynically hates anything not starring someone who looks like them, but the more interesting discussion is how big movie studios think representation can paper over poor, uninspiring stories. Many audiences can sense how inauthentic some of these stories are, and it is more about the filmmakers politics than telling a coherent story and giving us an interesting experience. And politics can definitely have a place in films of course, but there's an insincerity to how they've been implemented lately because its main goal isn't to highlight the specific discourse, but just to profit off of it.
@@Ray03595 Except it isn't profitable at all! Disney's been burning money since Avengers: Endgame. That's why it's classifiable propaganda--the political/social messaging has been far more important than anything related to storytelling, cinema, or even success, it seems.
I would say it's not about representation, but about messaging. I have watched a few movies recently where I actually agreed with the sentiment of the movie but didn't like how the point was sledgehammered into the viewer. The message has more resonance if it's woven into the movie and the viewer feels like they came up with it by themselves. This is how good teachers teach. You equip your student with the tools to make inferences, then ask them for the inference, and then they feel like they reached the conclusion by themselves. It's empowering. Barbie was the worst offender here. I agreed with the messaging of the movie, but really didn't like how blunt it was. Maybe it was aimed at kids, in which case it's not so bad, but I think even kids can handle a little more coded messaging rather than bluntness: I enjoyed Transformers (the 80s series) as a kid, and there's a lot in there about friendship and reaching across social divides, and I got that even though it's woven into the story and is not explicitly stated.
There's nothing you can do to stop someone who is racist from disliking an anti-racist movie, but you can do something about making sure your anti-racist message comes across through good storytelling rather than being tacked on. And in case it needed pointing out, there's nothing wrong with having such messages in movies. Art should challenge, educate and motivate as well as entertain.
@@devononair Exactly! It's like our nation's storytellers have lost the ability to simply tell a good story and let the story be as honest & true as possible. The audience can draw it's own conclusions about how they want to live in reaction to it. That's what great art does. It is not pleasant to be TOLD you have to live "THIS WAY" not "THAT WAY".
It's just that most people don't like movies ; they like the movies they like.
To put it in an other way, they see cinema not as an art form, but as an entertainement.
This is true, but I doubt it is a new phenomenon. Most people have "art" on their walls, but the majority have watercolours of landscapes or animals, and those same people say "modern art is a load of rubbish." I think that it is true and probably has always been true that the majority of people want to work, play and relax, and not think deeply about why we are here. During the renaissance, art patrongs would have paintings commissioned and the artists would insert hidden meaning in the work, and the patrons would never realise. True art exists for the few people who really want to think about why we are here, and perhaps, maybe enlighten a few of the masses along the way.
@@devononair
This is true : it has always existed, and it exists for all artform. It is more obvious today because art has never been more accessible
Blade Runner is my favorite movie of all time.
Do you mean BR2049 or the original? Personally, when I saw BR2049, I immediately knew that it was layered and designed WAY beyond what most movies were all about. I even recognized that it would be "boring" and "drawn out" to the masses. But holy sheet was it a bloody FANTASTIC production in nearly every regard. The costuming, lighting, music, specific performances (BAUTISTA WAS AWESOME!!!), the color palettes, the direction, the thematic underpinnings... all of it.
@@Novastar.SaberCombat yeah I went to see BR2049 with friends (in their 50s, who loved the original) and when the credits rolled one of them audibly said "what the f?" we talked in the car and they said they didn't get it. I dont think they ever rewatched it.
A mediocre film as far as writing and acting, but atmospherically it's hard to replicate.
@@DanLyndona pun on replicant! 😂
I absolutely adore the original, but as for 2049, I think it's probably the most lifeless and sterile movies I've ever watched. All the flat, empty sets, monochromatic lighting, lifeless performances, and empty sound design. I don't understand what people see in it. Its world fails to live and breathe the way the original did. It's why I haven't bothered with anything else Dennis Villeneuve has put out.
I think since costs have increased audiences tend to prefer something they have a higher chance of enjoying. Also studios insist on huge budgets and therefore are afraid of risks
That's so true from the opposite perspective as well. The cinema is so expensive that I have no interest in spending that much to not be challenged or taken out of my reality.
Also the complete lack of cinema decorum is a huge turn off these days.
Why can people just simply embrace that you can like, even love, the Marvel movies AND The Citizen Kane?? My patron saint, Roger Ebert, would agree with me.
I never realized how often people were trying to find relatability while watching a movie. Most of the time for me, the experience of watching a film has always been about immersing myself in a different world or exploring unique perspectives. Take, for instance, Sin City, one of my favorite films. Although I couldn't relate to the volatile characters, I found it captivating to delve into their world and observe the dynamics of government, gangs, and relationships unfold over the course of 2 hours. I’ve always thought that the allure of cinema lies in the creation of immersive story worlds and compelling storytelling. Perhaps I simply have an imaginative mindset and prefer to appreciate the narrative presented to me rather than constantly seeking personal connections.
Also to add, I’m not knocking those who want to watch something relatable (I do sometimes as well) this was just a very interesting perspective and well made video that opened my mind up to how others enjoy cinema!!
Fyi: This is just some thoughts I had about pt 1. Open discussion or critiques is more than welcomed!!
I was conflicted about how this video leans into the worst of film snobbery, but the comments have affirmed my conviction. So much of this essay reads as "the moral failure of the sheeple to truly understand cinema." It takes a full 30 minutes to even examine what factors might contribute to people choosing unchallenging media, but then falls back on "people just need to watch better movies." And the essay doesn't acknowledge that critics have complained about the decline of the public's relationship with art for as long as there have been critics. So frustrating!
Interesting counter-argument. Thank you.
Well critique, basically it reflects the current times of; unimaginative, uninspired, uninventive. It’s not one side or the other, but both
I also think there's a bit of general xenophobia buried in the constant use of foreign films specifically. There's a reason those TikTok people tend to pick European countries as examples because it would sound too blatant otherwise.
I struggle a lot with attention span but I personally find that watching a movie with at least one other person gets me to stay locked on it, whereas when I'm watching alone it's too easy to justify distracting myself with something else. I know this doesn't work for everyone though. It always makes me sad when I see my friends scrolling on their phones during an entire movie or conversation.
Perhaps this is new to this channels audience, but nothing herein isn't covered in an introductory course in media (oh, perhaps I'm so old that media courses not longer cover this?) , and an essay that purports to bemoan a change in cinema without mentioning either the Marcarthy era or McLuhan (again perhaps I'm too old) doesn't fill me with confidence in the analysis. Plus it's filled with platitudes and deepities (look it up).
Perhaps it's because my experience of so-called "art-house" movies and subsequent analysis with people who supposedly get it, is that these are jumbles of concepts thrown together in the hope that they appear deep and the audience will draw their own relevance from that confusion. When it does appear that there's coherence, the concepts and challenges are not new, and no progression is made in exploring the underlying questions or concepts.
(not that I'm happy with modern movies)
I'll return to shaking my fist at the sky. (But I will look at your other videos!)
I was really worried you were going to do what you did at 14:55. You reduced the ‘anti-woke’ criticism to a sound bite caricature.
You then go onto paint an unfair picture using that caricature, offering, I think, precisely zero substance. I see this more and more for those assuming the ‘middle-ground position….
…Oh. As I was typing this comment, you went and jumped the shark. “The anti-woke movement tends to be rooted in bigotry…”
Please show your working on that sweeping assertion.
I’ve always thought Tenet was a great example of this. Fresh concept, innovative story telling, yet people shunned it because they couldn’t be bothered to figure it out.
hear hear!
Thanks for making your videos. You've cultivated a nice community of like minded people. I feel a strong connection to everything you say and everyone here. A community who still value depth and quality but aren't elitist or snobbish.
Dare i say, you find them relatable.
@@sagniksarkar2471 Indeed. I think they are literally me :)
*we are legion.* We will terrorize the world with nuanced opinions and an above average attention span.
@@sagniksarkar2471oh no, certainly this channel is doomed now
For what it’s worth, I think that those Tik Toks make a valid point. Movies like “Toy Story” as mentioned in one of those Tik Toks legitimately mean a lot to a ton of people. Yet, some people do seem to be embarrassed to admit it because it’s an animated film that’s under the Disney umbrella. Yet, that film and so many other “conventional pop corn” flicks reached people for a reason. Why be embarrassed to admit that it reached you too?
At the same time, a lot of people are embarrassed to admit if their favorite movie is, let’s say an experimental French movie from the 60’s for different reasons. They worry about seeming “different” or like an “outcast” if they admit to like movies that are against the grain.
When people are asked, “What is your favorite movie?” at an indie film festival, they might feel compelled to say something that will help fit into that crowd.
When asked the same question in a more informal setting, you might feel compelled to
Give a more “informal” answer.
What our actual “favorite movies” are though almost never fits into easy boxes like that in my opinion.
it doesn't matter where I am or who I'm talking to: my favorite movie is blade runner 2049. maybe that's because it was a somewhat successful blockbuster, and is also a very slow and difficult watch.
@@lavabeard5939 Blade Runner 2049 was an "artistic" success but it flopped at the box office. Modern audiences do not enjoy "slow" movies unfortunately...
@@chebbou69 yeah it wasnt a huge success (I dont think it lost money though, maybe it did), but it was still a big movie. so I can get away with saying its my favorite without people looking at me sideways lol
I think the point is, that they assume you're lying when you mention something "not popular". Why cant they just accept that you may genuinely like the films you claim to like? It's like people are very intimidated by others and wanna create trends to make themselves feel better when nobody is actually harming them.
Toy Story is one of the most socially acceptable "favorite movies as a kid" answer anyone could give. it's this pretending to be disadvantaged shtick that drives me mad. you've made up a person. no one is making fun of you for having liked Toy Story as a child, or even now. Toy Story 4 grossed 1 billion worldwide. the majority of those viewers were adults or adults with children.
Part of me thinks that there is so much to be stressed about lately that people are just looking for an escape. One where they don’t have to think too much or feel too much.
@hannnnahhahhahha the problem is they want every single pience of entertainment to revolve around them and need to be spoonfed, they dont get that other people exist too and want an escape, and want different things in entertainment in order to better consistently escape
people mock others for wanting villains that are pure evil, unforgivable, irredeemable saying those villains are boring, lack depth, childish, cartoonish, one-note, soulless, only for kids; they have very infantalizing and condescending attitudes
I know you as being both intelligent and wise, but it seems to me that you have not yet seen how malevolent, insane and destructive the woke ideology is. We really do need to actively work against it, or it will destroy us. Economic profit has always been a motive for creating movies, but these days political correctness have become a higher priority for several production companies. The destruction of old franchises gives new creators a chance to be discovered, like seeds sprouting after a forest fire.
Maybe you're wrong about "woke ideology"
@@OhioMan1854 Maybe I'm right about woke ideology.
I'm honestly really disappointed in the clickbait title and thumbnail on a video that is nominally against the algorithmic serving of content. That disappointment though is far outstripped by my disappointment in the judgmental attitude featured in most of the video.
I have no problem with examining cultural trends, but you lose me when you start going on about how things were so much better in the past (they weren't; to take an example you used, Fight Club also clearly utilizes relatability in its main character and engages in overt moralizing) and denigrating those who don't engage with film the way you do when you clearly know, based on some of the things you said in this very video, that the problem lies with the socioeconomic system and not with those individuals. It is quite ironic that you seem to be using this very video to cast yourself as being on the side of "saving" cinema so you can feel comfortable again in your role as someone who critiques film after encountering ideas that made you question yourself and feel uncomfortable.
I originally subscribed to this channel because of videos like the Lover/King/Warrior/Magician archetype series, the Arrival video on confronting existential fear, and even more recent ones like the 'lighting the beacons' LotR video, because they were excellent explorations of concepts presented in movies. The kind of content represented in this video and others you have recently put out is why I am now unsubscribing. I wish you the best and hope that your content does well, but I will not support you while you continue like this.
I've always enjoyed going to the movie theater, but I feel like I enjoy it more now because I'm in a dark room where I usually try to turn my phone off and not get distracted.
Let me offer a lone (?) dissenting voice. People don't, in general, think people who like art house cinema are pretentious, but what some are objecting to is being looked down upon for liking "simple" movies. I don't think this video helps in that respect. The second point of wokeness making movies worse -- I concede that that can be annoying, but movies have always reflected what is happening in society. Take a broader view. Don't judge a person for dancing, they may be very well read, and could, perhaps, happily discuss poetry or go deep into philosophy. Even if they are billionaires. In the end, I'm happy that you still enjoy cinema. I just don't think things are as dire as you paint them.
There's nothing wrong with moralism in art. Every great novel from the 18th and 19th Centuries (not to mention most medieval poetry and on and on) was self-consciously moralistic-trying to teach their audience some kind of lesson, whether about the importance of some virtue or the proper way to behave in a certain type of situation. It seems like the problem with our moralistic movies today is that they are written by people who want to teach morality without having thought very hard about it beforehand.
I think there's a tendency for people today to think a work has to do be morally ambiguous to be challenging. But that's not really true at all. For example, when I read Mansfield Park I found very clear teachings on morality, yet it still challenged me because they we're not quite the ones I held myself.
If "literally me" was taking over all cinema, then the most successful filmmaker in the business wouldn't be Christopher Nolan. I can't think of anyone who watched a single one of his films and actually related to the characters. That's not the point of his films. I know a lot of people call this a flaw, but here, I think this is part of the point you're making. Seeing yourself in the characters is not the sole purpose of cinema, or even all that important. Sometimes, you need to step out of yourself to look at someone that's entirely unlike you, and actually see them.
That's bullshit. Leonard Shelby from Memento and Bale's Batman can easily be identified as literally me characters.
@@SuperBat63 That's interesting. How so?
My understanding of "literally me" was that it was simply a social trend, where people were projecting themselves onto characters that weren't meant to be role models. I don't think the video was trying to say it was reflective of any intent in film-making.
I hope you don't genuinely believe that representing historical figures as the wrong race is not a problem. Wokeness is a real thing.
Not only that, but changing the race of characters in a worse retelling, just because. A study of the "remakes" genre would tell any honest person that they are inferior and it's highly likely because of the race agenda they're going for.
That McCarthy quote hit hard.
I wrote a 606 page book that gets great ratings by people who finish it, but not a lot of people finish it lol
I've been rediscovering classics and forcing myself to watch mostly fringe cinema, forgotten high concept works, weird stuff, and I can't help but need or crave a big mac every now and then, but commercial movies do frustrate me a lot as well.
Big Macs are good. And filling.
@@nope5657bad for your health long-term
"just say toy story" why?? some of us watch "grown up" movies as kids that impact us much much more than ...toy story, tik tok discourse is just one long 'haAh RiGHt GuYs??????' for the intellectually lazy
Shut up snob toy story is great. My favourite movie is mary and max. But i love both of them
Last movie that really blew me away was Top Gun: Maverick. Rewatched it for 4th of July. It feels like the kind of movies my Dad used to show me that he grew up with. It's just good clean fun and it makes you feel incredible.
60 years from now a 40 year old man will say his favorite movie is the classic Top Gun: Maverick. His 19 year old son rolls his eyes, too bad his dad´s taste in movies is so dry, boring and pretentious.
@@Desmond9100 why do you have to be so unnecessarily negative?
To me it kinda felt like that with Inside Out 2, I hadn't seen a Pixar movie in theaters since Toy Story 4 in 2019, but this new sequel (which I wasn't expecting) blew me away, I would even say I liked it more than the first one (which was good), this one felt more mature, I found reflecting about myself (am I a good person?) and also laughing, it's the happiest I felt in a long time, during and after the movie ended.
It was also a great communal experience, theater packed, lots of kids, parents and grandparents, my Mom hadn't seen long rows to see a movie since the 80s, we loved it.
@@Desmond9100Top Gun isn't even pretentious, it's american propaganda at best, but I could see the appeal at the time, my Mom saw it at the time, my Uncle was in the navy, many army men in my family, it was like "feeling at home" seeing all those white uniforms, I also like those scenes where the boys are singing, I imagine that's what my Uncle did with his navy friends during his youth.
@@Stack-of-pokemon Its not my opinion of the movie, its the hypothetical 19 year old son's opinion
There is no low brow. There is no high brow. You're not better because you don't watch marvel movies or think they are not real movies.
There is both. It's just that it's okay to like both or even one or the other
Using Nerdrotic's words as an entrê to shallowness in calling something "woke" is deeply disingenuous or ignorant. What he critiques is "representation" over "story"; that is characters who are only cardboard imitations of people without any consistency in motivation, dialogue , etc. The engire non-mainstream youtube media critic culture mourns the loss of story to the shallow slapping of a non-white person into a role and thinking that it gives the movie meaning AND also the replacing of historic racial representation whith non-historical mash-mash of racial identities that lack reason and context (such as the Black Viking) AND the introduction of pop-Deconstructionism (such as in the Woman King) where non-whites can only be virtuous and white men can only be evil. It is the shallowness of the effort that offends.
For instance, contrast the gay/lesbian relationships in Good Omens season 2 (which left this straight white conservative religious male) with a true sense of loss at the irreconcilable division between Crowly and Aziraphale at the ending vs the shallow representation in The Acolyte which offends me with it's forced insertion at a hinted relationship between Osha and Jacki in an already over-deconstructed franchise.
I didn’t realize that 2001 wasn’t actually my favorite film. I wish someone told me that before I bought a bunch of shirts, painted the logo on my wall, and spent countless hours watching and rewatching it. I guess my favorite movie really is every marvel movie. Thanks for setting me straight
Well, a very pessimistic take indeed - there has always been a difference between true cinema and shallow entertainment, arthouse and popcorn, independent cinema and relatable Hollywood blockbuster franchises. Its all a matter of choice (and intellect), at least to me. And then there are border crossers like recently Dune, failed Oscar-candidates like Babylon and the whole range of auteur-cinema (Malick, Eggers, Guadagnino...). No reason for dispair, I think.
The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly is like a Cowboy acton film, is not even an arthouse movie. WTF?
I definitely don't agree that anti-woke is rooted in bigotry, even though that can definitely be a part of it. Representation has become such a huge part of production it's an absurdity, that's what people are latching onto. There is no real logic in the decision to make a production "woke" outside of artisticly arbitrary popular politics.
My favourite movies includes 12 Angry Men, Rashomon, Inception, Memento, X-Men Days of the future Past the Entire Mummy series and I think there is no bar of likeness because all these movies just blew my mind and moved me emotionally, whatever moves me emotionally I love it.
Sooooo tired of "the message"
Watch "Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood"
I think the idea from Kayleigh Dray holds weight, but I recognize in myself that I turn on LOTR when I’m alone, because it’s like having my friends on the screen…or “my Family” if you are familiar with the ideas of the novel “Fahrenheit 451”. As a registered nurse myself, I think for some people, stems from a place of disconnection: on average, there are too many people on the planet and we all have too many connections and the world moves too fast, and therefore we must find ways to cope with being overwhelmed.
I think for the first time, I actually disagree with you completely on one of your analyses. Your claim that the criticisms of wokeness have become just a reflexive response to diversity is wildly inaccurate. The issue is that people are using diversity of skin color, ethnicity and sexual orientation, to supplant diversity of story and character. People are fighting back because these ideologies are being broadcast lock step by major media and aiming to influence you and society. I can agree that there are personalities on the internet who are fanning the flames, but Idk man. Im not taking the time to write out a whole essay, but as a big fan of your work and essays, I think more of your time and analysis could go to that topic. Disney lost Billions in market valuation the last five years, this ideology is not popular. I think you scratched the surface of a much bigger cultural phenomenon and chalking it up to “these people are just bigots”, is totally wrong. I invite your response.
Then why do "anti-woke" commentators get mad when just the casting of a woman or a person of color is announced, instead of waiting to see what the end product's stories and characters are like? Conversely, why do they get mad at things like Black Ariel in the live-action Little Mermaid remake, a movie that nobody was expecting any "diversity of storytelling or character" from?
@@erraticonteuse it’s pretty straightforward. Is it a pattern that studios are leaning further and further into diversity hires? I would say yes. It’s just confirmation bias that the story telling will come second to the political check boxes being filled out. I think all of those people who criticize it would be open to the idea that they could be wrong. If the movie came out and was a banger, they’d admit it . Very few quality pictures are coming out. It’s largely political propaganda. As for Ariel, why are black people allowed to call out cultural appropriation, but then when white culture is appropriated it’s okay? Ariel was white. Now to be clear, I couldn’t care less, but if you don’t see it’s a political move, you’re not paying attention to what’s going on in culture.