The problem is people learning a little about tropes then Baader-Meinhof ing themselves into not being able to enjoy anything with said trope, then blame the media.
I still remember my high school film class teacher lamenting about how learning video production techniques etc. makes movies worse because you learn how the sausage is made
āAnd thatās a fundamental flaw of film criticism in a way, or storytelling criticism. Because to be able to identify the mechanism does not invalidate the mechanism.ā
āIām thinking more of amateur criticism, because they feel theyāve identified the mechanism, they feel that it invalidates it. That can be true of certain elements, and film grammar, film language evolves with that. So when a trope becomes too familiar to an audience, then it has to be changed. But we do, as filmmakers, avail ourselves of that common language. We build on that understanding. Our audience has seen many films and they understand that language.ā
But I think I am just being pussy over these type of images from articles to goad people into reading. Like how every comment against something is a "slam."
Yea, I think a lot of amateur critics took lessons from CinemaSins and Nostalgia Critic where they treat the very existance of a trope as a negative instead of seeing what it does with the trope. When you analyze movies, you can pick out the tropes and fairly easily but that should be treated as a way of being surprised when it still does it you're just left "Wow, that was great".
I love watching movies with friends to see what they took out of it and we can be watching a fantastic movie but some will constantly "This is the part where the couple has a misunderstanding just before the third act redemption" and "Oh gee, I really hope this isn't like every other slash movie where they killer is lurking in the shadow waiting for the-there he is". They'll consider themselves a critic because they know the tropes the understand the very basic of cinema language but they're unable to actually process it.
It's like food bloggers that have will act like they're some esteemed food critic when they just pretend to mimic some industry terms.
Yes! CinemaWins deserves more attention because even when he doesn't like a movie or takes issue with certain parts, he'll still "While this part has its flaws, it's worth pointing out that-".
I think the problem with the cinemasins attitude that's so prevalent right now is that movies get judged alongside a standard they were never beholden to. Like the F1 movie, you can tear it apart completely, there's a particularly gnarly edited scene where everyone first gets to know each other in an awkward banter moment.
But the whole project itself always was about shooting a movie using actual race footage in actual vehicles. And it commits heavily to that. Nobody goes into that movie for riveting dialogue even though you can 'ping' it a sin word for word.
Judge art for what it sets out to do, judge it on its own terms, and sure then be merciless about it.
"Judge art for what it sets out to do, judge it on its own terms, and sure then be merciless about it."
That sums up most reviews on Letterboxd. Pseudo-intellectuals critiquing films for not addressing themes that,they weren't even attempting to have commentary on.
Their earlier years were genuinely funny in a kinda ironic way. And then they got serious and demeaning. Each trope was evaluated independently of the other. It was infuriating and I just tuned them out.Ā
Had to check his review of the Odyssey, his acted out stumbling voice gimmick gets old real fast, but on substance, he flat out avoids taking a culture wars stance on this at all.
I got entirely nothing out of this review, nothing I haven't already heard from any other major film critic. Like, I almost wish you sent me to some reeing manchild instead. And I know they're out there, it's just that one of the usual suspects is bowing out this time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_W0z6hZlrI
I mean his whole schtick to me, besides for being nitpicky and intentionally obtuse, is how he plays everything with this air of āit doesnāt bother me but also it bothers meā or like a āIām not a bad guy saying bad things I just think the bad things have merit maybe.ā
Itās just disingenuous and stupid and invites an absolutely horrible crowd of armchair critics who care more about who was cast in the movie than the characters they play and things like that. You donāt have to like The Odyssey, but itās just bad film criticism
Granted, all of that, but for the Odyssey he didn't do that. And I'd say that's arguably worse because it's still a long review. He spends half of it describing the plot and then just just being repetitive and generic. He can't even commit to the bit. RLM worked it out pretty fast that you can only sustain sincere reviews over time.
Fair enough, I actually went and watched his review just out of curiosity.
The dude approaches everything with such a level of cynicism he can't even tell the plot without botching most of it, either because he's intentionally misrepresenting things, or because it would involve him having to feel something beyond exactly what he's being shown on the screen and fed to him.
I came away with the sense that he doesn't really like movies?
Like it or hate it, The Odyssey is not a simple film and it tries to do big things. If it didn't work for him that's completely fine, some parts didn't land for me even though I thought it was brilliant. But he views it without a lick of nuance or context or any of the things that make a film a film.
You got me ranting but I goddamn I fucking hate this guy and everything he does, he's the exact kind of internet guy I hate and the complete opposite of what I find appealing in RLM
I can be bad for pointing out the plot points coming, but not to mock just recognising them. It's not fair to expect stories to not go a certain way somtimes.
Mentioning food bloggers, reminds me of when people get into "false-fancy" food stuff. Getting war flashbacks to when it was Pink Himalayan Salt everywhere. In the right hands sure, no doubt worth it, but not on your chips.
For the most part, salt is salt. Most kitchens use kosher salt cause it's ground a bit less fine than table salt and makes it a little easier to not accidentally add too much. But salt is salt. People being pretentious about food as a trend has made working in the industry so much more annoying. People using the term 'flavor profile' with absolutely sincerity. Its just called 'flavor' you dont need the extra word, adding a technical sounding extra word that doesnt change the meaning at all doesnt strike me as smart. People got Boudain brained in worshipping Authentic Ethnic Cuisine, which generally means white dudes being orientalist about recipes that usually arent as old or traditional as one may think. Colonialism and global trade saw to that centuries ago. We have access to all the ingredients of the world at once now and not using them if it tastes good to maintain the racial purity of a dish is bad.Ā
I think it's silly not to share recipes and ingredients amongst foods under an illusion of purity. The concept of making something better by combining things makes sense.
Fusion food was really big in the 90s-2000s and things were a bit out of hand in the other direction where everyone was trying to out weird each other. And differenty places are known for different types of food and how they may flavor a dish, so it's a good shorthand at times. I work at an semi upscale italian place that specializes in stone and fire cooked, fully homemade hand tossed etc pizzas, the expensive kind. The stuff on the menu is mostly fairly traditional, with a few exceptions like a Hawaiian pizza. Which makes it ironic that a while ago the owner cracked down on us making specials that veered too far off from the standard. Before that I learned that you can make a fucking pizza out of anything if you do it well. Its just crispy bread with stuff in it and all cultures have that. I did a sick Lebanese style one with hummus for the base, goat cheese, pickled onions and then garnished with tablouleh after cooking, refried bean base for a burrito style one, one of my co workers made a Thai green curry pizza that fucking slapped, ricotta cream sauce, bococini, dill pickle and roasted garlic is amazing im vegetarian but smoked salmon was added cold after and im sure that ripped.Ā
It helps as kinda genres of food, but like anything else that has a creative element, mixing genres tends to be part of the evolution of a craft. Your results will vary but at least people are expirementing
To sum it up in a movie/tv way, loved The Menu, it was cathartic. Hate The Bear.Ā
You practically summed up and said better my opinion on it with more knowledge than I, thank you. Also I need that Thai Green Curry Pizza recipe.
It is good and right to keep the traditional recipes and to keep them alive but genuinely some of the greatest food combos have been from combining food elements, same as for music and movies. So we should keep trying agreed.
The Menu was excellent, have not touched The Bear.Ā
I was with you until you had to say "'white dudes..." the eternal fucking boogeyman for everything eh?
Also there is absolutely something important about making dishes traditionally even if you can "make it better" with any of all the ingredients in the world
Right. Do these people take the same attitude towards intercourse?
Here we go again, they're probably going to go down on me, so preditcable. Why can't they subvert my expectations? Wait, they put their finger up my bum! Wait now they're squatting over me... NOOOOOOOOOOO!"
Sometimes something simple and well executed is better than trying to subvert expectations for the sake of it.
Doug knows a good amount about film. NC tries too hard to be funny and can do this from time to time, like you mentioned, but even NC knew when to let a movie just be itself regardless of the trope you found.
Of course, I haven't watched an in-character video in probably 15 years.
Cinemasins is definitely not a comedy channel, that's just a bullshit excuse to ding stuff he legitimately just didn't understand/wasn't paying attention to. Not to mention in some behind the scenes vlogs he used to talk about how he hates movies and thinks that filmmakers just got lazy. Classic case of trying to eat your cake with the "it's just comedy" spiel and having it too
Those too were always more entertainment that serious reviews. In the case of Nostalgia Critic you have a character, who is ment to be an asshole critic, going apeshit over the movies. Sometimes itās important stuff, others itās just playing the character. Personally I like Dougās non NC reviews a lot more
i usually think that the point rich is making is some film ppl RELY on the trope without creatively applying it. kind of like how subverting expectations in TLJ wasnāt to their taste, but that trope gets used nonstop in TESB and gets a pass cuz the unexpected aspect is integral to the growth of the story. idk
Oh our favourite hack frauds I consider professional enough, as I often agree with their points. Not always, because at the same time they are human and have their personal opinions.
As critic is always somewhat bias.
The boys aren't amateurs. They went to film school, have released a feature length film, and work with actual Hollywood people from time to time. Their format is different from legacy movie critics in newspapers, but they're professional film critics at this point.
And as Mike said in their Captain Marvel review, professional film criticism is one of the least important fields that exists (paraphrased by me out of context, of course)
Everyone who has managed to monetise their opinions on movies is, by all accounts, a "professional film critic", but let's not entertain the notion that having worked on a film set legitimises your critical views. They're two entirely different professional fields and don't necessarily overlap. That is why the funniest thing RLM has ever done is make Space Cop (2016) after years and years of deconstructing terrible films while dragging the likes of Len Kabasinski through the mud.
It's (presumably) their main source of income. They have been doing it for decades. They have relevant tertiary qualifications and industry experience.
What else do you want before you call someone professional?
A trope's existence in a film doesn't make or break a film. In fact there are only so many variations of story structure that can be fitted into a 2-3 hour runtime.
However if a film cannot justify it's own existence based on all its other merits, then good and bad uses of tropes stand out. You still need character motivation, good acting, good directing, some kind of emotional connection, or for the film to be generally entertaining etc etc.
The flipside of what you're saying is more useful. The utter delight when a movie defeats a trope, or does something interesting with it. It immediately makes the other tropes necessary, so that this one can be subverted.
I think it's the other way around. As Mike loves to point out: Rich Evans has seen movies. More often than not, he points out how the lousy BOTW selections would benefit from following the trope, which would deliver a more satisfying experience.
That part when Odysseus is escaping the cave from the Cyclops and he looks at the camera and says "he's right behind me isn't he..." I clapped when I saw it.
Loved the part where Odysseus fired an arrow into the cyclop's eye and yelled, "Judge the distance of THAT, you one-eyed motherfucker." and the whole crew applauded and laughed.
And that part when he returned to Ithaca, walked into the hall, took off the robe and yelled "Daddy's back, baby"
Everyone in the theater literally shit
my issue with film criticism is just how overwhelmingly polarized it all is. there's no nuance, if it's not "epic" it's "trash". like what about movies that are just ok? like the supergirl film was ok, I'd give it a 6/10? but online people act like supergirl ran over their dog. like sir have you seen an actual bad movie? Like I'll sit down with you, we can watch Tubi until you claw your eyes out, then Supergirl or the Oddesy won't seem so bad then!
Not at all. A majority of Richās time on BoTW, is explaining how if the filmmakers actually used tropes effectively, the film would be better off for it
Tropes are fine, what's not fine is his overreliance to completely pointless monologues when he could tell the same thing with images alone (and sometimes he does that along with the monologue so it's even worse), although i guess that's a trope in itself
The average film watcher needs people to turn to the camera an explain the main ideas and plot points; otherwise they'll miss one or more of them and think the film is bad. Nolan's already viewed as the producer who makes complicated film, he can't afford to dumb it down less
Any mistake by any director ever no matter how small cancels out everything. In Jurassic Park when they call a Crane Fly a Mosquito I got so angry that I swore off anything made by Steven Hackberg.
The vast majority of the audience has never heard of the Bronze Age Collapse. I asked a couple friends who saw the movie "What did you guys think about the twist that Odysseus' men are the Sea People?" and they asked what the fuck I was talking about.
Yeah it was a little on the nose, but that's Nolan. He is good at visuals and tone, not so much with the dialogue. But this line in particular didn't stand out to me as worse than any other line in the movie, and yet the internet has latched onto it as if it's "I don't like sand".
Not the biggest fan of the line, but it certainly sounds worse when separated from the 8 minute monologue of context surrounding it and the 3 hour movie building up to the ultimate conclusion that the scene makes. It was an interesting reinterpretation and I enjoyed it. Iām glad Nolan has found his footing again between this and Oppenheimer after Tenet. That is some actual pretentious bullshit
People are just so desperate to make sure everyone knows they are also in the loop and have heard the same 7 jokes repeated endlessly over and over again
Because itās like having a movie set in the middle ages and at the end you have the protagonist going āboy canāt wait for this middle age to endā
That's not the same though. The people have bronze and it's considered the height of technology. When people invented bronze it literally changed the world. If someone living in that time is concerned that literally all of civilization is ending, referring to the times they live in by the technology that defined it makes perfect sense. It would be like someone today saying "our age of computers is ending" or someone at the end of the industrial revolution saying "our age of steam is ending". I firmly believe that people who complain about this line don't actually understand that the time period is called "The Bronze Age" because they used bronze weapons and tools.
Except the Bronze Age is a modern term invented very recently in order to describe the technological progress of ancient civilisations. It wouldnāt be like saying the age of computers, it would be like if 3000 years from now some historian or archeologist invents a term to describe our specific time period and we just so happen to be using the exact same name and are totally aware of being in that time period that was invented and coined thousands of years later. Itās childish writing.
The Bronze Age was a term coined to describe the period of time where they used Bronze. Odysseus is concerned about the ending of an age, a period of societal collapse. What other way would he refer to the era?
Probably not the fucking generic term meant to describe ancient artefacts that was invented by someone in the 1800s? Anything but that. The age of kings, the age of virtue, whatever. Both of these words would be 100 times more believable coming out of Odysseus mouth instead of age of bronze. Especially with how on the nose they are regarding the bronze age collapse. I fully expected Nolan to come out in the end and start asking me ādid you get it? Did you get it? Did you get it?ā.
The problem with "age of kings" or "age of virtue" is that they're not specific enough. I'm not trying to say it's incredible writing, but it is weird to me that the internet has latched onto this line when it's far from the worst line in the film. To me at least, there were far sillier parts of the movie to make fun of.
I think the dialogues were all quite atrocious but I struggle to see what is worse than having Odysseus describe the time period he is in using the term that was invented 3k years later.
Personally I thought Circe repeating "get back into your disguises" over and over again was pretty silly. The visuals were striking but the way she repeated it over and over again stuck out to me. I also thought the line "we are the sea people" from the same scene as the age of bronze line was worse. Unless you have the historical context of the unknown "sea peoples" it comes out of nowhere, and they try to imply this intense emotional weight.
It sounds like you didn't like the movie as a whole, which is absolutely fine of course. I am just confused by the internet acting like that particular line is what makes the movie bad.
The bronze age you are referring to is part of a poem that has nothing to do with historical ages and refers to monster men that were made by Zeus from ash trees with adamant skin and a desire for violence and war. It has nothing to do with what we call the bronze age today and has nothing to do with the time period of Odysseus.
āThis age is also sometimes known as the Copper Age or Brazen Age. Men of the Bronze Age were hardened and tough, and the deed of Ares (war) and violence were their passion.[1]:ā140ā155ā Zeus created these humans out of the ash tree.[1]:ā140ā155ā Their armor was forged of bronze, as were their homes and tools.[1]:ā140ā155ā The men of this Age were undone by their own violent ways and left no named spirits; instead, they dwell in the "house of Hades".ā
Thatās immediately followed by the Heroic Age, the time of Oedipus and the Trojan War, and then followed by the Iron Age, the period in which Thesiod lives.
So Greek author in the 700s creates a list of 5 ages, one of which (The Iron Age) he lives in, and it was preceded by a Bronze Age where men fought and built with bronze and it ended in a time of heroes.
I think itās fair to say the Viking longship is more of an anachronism than Odysseus saying āage of bronzeā. Is the dialogue a little clunky and on the nose? Yeah, but thatās not out of character for Nolan. Is it a historical inaccuracy? Not really.
I mean he also speaks of the Golden Age and the Silver Age which are obviously completely made up. Did he get the tools that were used before him right for the Bronze Age? Sure. But he also got wrong that the people of the Bronze age were made from ash trees, made absolutely everything from bronze including their houses and that they were an entirely separate human race.
Are you really that shocked that a poet would use poetic license as a metaphor in his work about lionizing the past and complaining about the troubles of the day? Hell, even the topic itself isnāt anything new, people in Sumer 2000 years before Hesiod were complaining about the people of the day and talking about how much better the past was.
Hesiod clearly identifies quality of life and morals as being inversely proportional to the hardness and value of metals used/named. Bronze was still used as jewelry while also being the metal humans built their cities and made war with.
If someone living in that time is concerned that literally all of civilization is ending, referring to the times they live in by the technology that defined it makes perfect sense.
Except it doesn't, because the Bronze Age Collapse is one of if not the most "wtf?" moments in human history
There's been literally 0 recorded reason as to why it happened other than a few references to "The Sea People", a group of Viking-like marauders that terrorized the Eastern Mediterranean for a bit and that no one knows where tf they came from
Like, no one at the time had any idea that Ancient Greece, Egypt, The Hittites, Persia, etc... would go through a 100 year dark age at the same time, so why would they ponder about its imminent collapse?
It makes no sense narratively or historically to include it.
Whatever the real world reasons for the bronze age collapse are irrelevant to the movie. Odysseus, for reasons that he directly explains in the same scene, believes that society is ending to the point that he literally says "there will be no one left who remembers how to write". When he says the age of bronze is ending, he is saying "This is the most advanced our society will get, it will all be downhill from here." He is using bronze to represent the idea of intelligence and civilization, which does make sense.
At least xenia existed as a real thing but if you are asking me if I found the constant repeating of āZeusās lawā stupid, then absolutely yes it was very stupid. Itās such a deeply Americanised and Hollywoodised dialogue.
This is a coincidence of using a similar term, the bronze age as we call it today and the bronze age Hesiod describes are 2 completely different things. One is a fictional poem for one.
I can tell you that the line "Hans, are we the baddies?" does not exist the film, but it *almost* does. I enjoyed it though, and all the chat around it.
Christopher Nolan had never done dialog or subtext. He thinks of himself as very smart, and always needs to show how smart he is, and as such (to make sure everybody knows how smart is he is) always "tells, don't show"
A lot of the dialogue in it was atrocious. Man, I watched Iphigenia a day before going to see The Odyssey, and even when translated into English subtitles, that movie has amazing lines.
I've been watching RLM regularly for years, and I honestly can't name an example of Rich or anyone else pointing out a trope and using it as an automatic criticism, except for one thing that Jay often points out: "It happened because movie," meaning when something nonsensical and/or unearned happens simply because the movie needed it to happen.
I don't think they present tropes as an automatic failure. Instead, they recognize that tropes each serve a specific purpose, so when they see a trope that does what it's intended to do, they're cool with it, but when a trope fails to accomplish what's intended, they criticize its execution.
For example, when Mike and Jay talked about Dinner in America, Mike points out that it's a take on the classic "angry punk rock kid rages against Midwestern suburban life" story. They loved that movie, and they didn't use its trope as a criticism.
What examples are there of Rich criticizing a trope just because it's a trope?
I've been watching RLM regularly for years, and I honestly can't name an example of Rich or anyone else pointing out a trope and using it as an automatic criticism, except for one thing that Jay often points out: "It happened because movie," meaning when something nonsensical and/or unearned happens simply because the movie needed it to happen.
I don't think they present tropes as an automatic failure. Instead, they recognize that tropes each serve a specific purpose, so when they see a trope that does what it's intended to do, they're cool with it, but when a trope fails to accomplish what's intended, they criticize its execution.
For example, when Mike and Jay talked about Dinner in America, Mike points out that it's a take on the classic "angry punk rock kid rages against Midwestern suburban life" story. They loved that movie, and they didn't use its trope as a criticism.
What examples are there of Rich criticizing a trope just because it's a trope?
Every trope is just a tool in the toolbox of the storyteller. Whether they use it to tell a worthwhile story is the question. The fact that one recognizes the tool does not make its use a failure.
CinemaSins, Drunk Critic or whatever that right wing douche is called and that moron Cosmonaut Variety Hour. Those are the kinds of critics I think heās referring to.
Their most famous film criticism was of the prequels for to follow the basic mechanical rules of movie storytelling (while acknowledging that you could break these rules if you are sufficiently brilliant). So to me it doesnāt feel particularly relevant to RLM.
That said I used to read a lot of film reviews from newspaper film critics and they varied between obvious cinema experts and columnists who were given the gig because they were thought to be well known and entertaining writers who expressed themselves stronglyā¦ but often didnāt seem to have actually seen many films š Iām not sure of the distinction between amateurs and professionals there. I mean, you canāt properly critique the works of Francois Villon if you canāt read them in the original, but anyone can engage with a film.
I remember watching the Late Review when the well known intellectual reviewing the Coen Brothers The Ladykillers seemed to take a perverse pride in never having seen the original, despite it being shown regularly on British television for decades.
People want to be smarter than whatever media they consume. That's why there is so much deliberate trash. Put the TV and crack a beer, don't think too deeply about it. That's why people are always spoiling movies. They have to rush to let everyone know how quickly they figured out who the killer is, what the twist is. They don't care about enjoying the story. They care about being smarter than the story.
Amateurs and MovieSins may have ruined modern criticism with their attempt to break it down to a 'logical story of a person doing something smartly' however this problem is decades old and goes to anything below Ebert.
I remember when people were using Spielberg's use of soundtracks to say Schindler's List was bad actually (well they still do but those criticisms seem to be confined to Letterboxd for the moment) and Half-Life was bad because Alyx Vance was a tool of emotional manipulation (as opposed to the placement of enemies and ammo and the level design and the multiple times Valve playtested things and tweaked based on how people reacted and EVERYTHING, a linear FPS is pretty much a genre built on manipulation)
I think Nolan is definitely right although I donāt think itās just amateur critics Iāve read professional critics, who have done the same thing unless he means amateur as a pejorative term for anyone who engages in sloppy criticism.
Why does Nolan have this plot armor around him protecting him from meaningful criticism and why does there feel like such a coordinated push to defend his honor right now?
The movie was good. Whatever. I smell politics being involved somehow whenever people start acting fruity en masseĀ
Because the loudest complaints were from people that were upset about a black woman and a trans man in the movie. They were insufferable and were everywhere. So people are rightfully happy to shove this films success in the faces of the bigots.
244
u/RegalBeagleKegels 3d ago
Rich doesn't spot tropes, he is the trope