The film being from DC has nothing to do with it. If Joker was a Marvel character the conversation would be the same.
Joker (2019)
There's hardly any DC connection. I mean, you don't even see the DC logo until after the credits.
Posts: 1519
Joined:
January 2013
Release the Snyder Cut!!!
Posts: 8437
Joined:
August 2012
didn’t you know dc is oppressed by disney?
It seems to me that you are trying to separate a film's message from its other attributes, especially when it comes to judging it, when to me the message is just as integral to the movie as any other attribute. Even more, the relationship amongst a film's attributes are what give rise to a film's message. How the movie present's a character's actions, or how a scene is staged; even the type of music that accompanies a sequence all contribute to the meaning you should take away from the movie.radewart wrote: ↑September 11th, 2019, 3:06 amIf you don't like a movie's politics fine, go ahead and make that clear in your review, though. You should still try to attempt to critic/judge the film on whether the plot and actions of the characters work within the world of the constructed film. You don't have to agree with it's message but that doesn't mean the movie is bad.
I do think people who are viewed as professional critics, the ones who publish for magazines and newspapers,etc (whatever ones are still around) should show more naunce in letting their personal politics take control of a review. They shouldn't let the review become a launch pad for their own diatribe against something they see as wrong in our society. That's also something Ebert did. He wouldn't post reviews like the ones in Time magazine of Entertainment Weekly just did for this film.
There is also an assumption running through this thread that a film's message is somehow extrinsic from the people involved in creating the movie. That it somehow arises almost incidentally from the other more conscious choices the filmmakers make. Again, starting maybe from the writer, all these people one way or another, bring their own subjective viewpoints to the movie. Even the choice of making a particular movie reflects on the filmmakers. To simply put the onus then on critics to interpret the movie objectively, or put an asterisk next to their opinions, seems quite disingenuous to me.
are you sureradewart wrote: ↑September 11th, 2019, 3:06 amIf you don't like a movie's politics fine, go ahead and make that clear in your review, though. You should still try to attempt to critic/judge the film on whether the plot and actions of the characters work within the world of the constructed film. You don't have to agree with it's message but that doesn't mean the movie is bad.
I do think people who are viewed as professional critics, the ones who publish for magazines and newspapers,etc (whatever ones are still around) should show more naunce in letting their personal politics take control of a review. They shouldn't let the review become a launch pad for their own diatribe against something they see as wrong in our society. That's also something Ebert did. He wouldn't post reviews like the ones in Time magazine of Entertainment Weekly just did for this film.
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blue-velvet-1986
-Vader
went mad he did
