Save for a new PTA or QT movie, I don't feel any excitement when I go to the theater anymore. Some would blame my age, I blame the mediocrity of the movies - but that's a separate argument. Point is, as usual, I was entirely lukewarm on the idea of seeing Joker: Folie à Deux; while I liked the first one as much as the people who liked it, I disliked it as much as the people who didn't. At the end of the day it's the only comic book character I truly like as portrayed by one of my favorite working actors, and from that angle it melded harmoniously enough to recommend. So I found myself in a theater watching the sequel, not because I sought it out, but because, like everything, it was just the next thing. And what I found was exactly how everyone describes it - that is, to say, the people who actually have the tools to describe it beyond a single four-letter word. And while most people's observations were accurate, that is not to say I digested it in the same way as them.
Look I'm not gonna review the goddamn thing, I'm as sick of it as you are - but I will say that the fact that we're all sick of it is a problem in and of itself. Personally I can't think of any recent movies that generated this volume of discussion - the only problem was that the "discussion" was an avalanche of lowbrow toxicity and aimless frustration saturated in grammatical errors. One of the items on my very concise and coherent list of complaints I had about the 2019 film is how causally it would insult the intelligence of its audience. And then, in the purest and most maddening example of irony imaginable, the Sequel attempted some very mild abstractions and it went largely over the audience's head. Little to no surprise in a year that gave us the most generous helping of fan service to date. That's not based on some vague barometer - to my understanding, Marvel released a movie about Marvel movies. Conversely, Todd Phillips released a movie that grown men thought would turn them gay if they watched it. As much as people crave competition, there really wasn't one - not in this case.
I thought Joker 2 was considerably better than the first one, but it was still just a B/B+. That's why I haven't gone on some aggressive defense jag in its honor; it's pretty good but not enough for me to go out ridin' fences. And that's where we're at: as Film Criticism was once as much of a valued art form as Film itself, the new adjacent form entertainment is audience reaction. There's always been published "audience polls" and such for as long as I've paid attention, but now we have all these shared public forums where brains of all sizes can flesh out the reasons for their trivial point systems. But even still it comes down to the numbers; a lengthy essay (or even a girthy paragraph) is no match for a cluster of stars or a drawing of a tomato. And these services are put in place for a reason: just as the snobs need validation from IndieWire and Sight and Sound to inform their preferences, the "real fans" need their voices to be heard, free of all that pretentious academia put forward by critics. "If critics don't like it, that probably means it's good." And therein lies the root of that great moronic divide that's always haunting me and that I'm always complaining about: the senseless belief that there's a difference between "good" movies and "entertaining" movies. And naturally, professional critics know what's "good", amirite folks?
I've watched many of you abandon social media as a whole, and while I'm sad to lose your company in the vacuum of cyberspace, I commend your discipline; the greatest tragedy we've come to realize is that communication on a global scale is apparently bad for our health. Oh well. Masochist that I am I still rattle around these URLs just so I can read it over and over again...
I lie awake in bed staring into the darkness, pitying these poor souls who're convinced there's an illusive list of criteria that only the greatest Cinema can possess. And then I, an accredited scholar of Film and Film Studies, find myself struggling to calculate what these unique attributes could possibly be. Every once in a while I'll still muster the energy to engage with these commoners to find out if they have any ideas as to what makes a quality picture, and the common response is simply a list of the duties performed on a basic film production.
Indeed, movies do have these things - so much so that they've gone as far as to categorize them for award shows and the like. But there it is: films with "good editing, good writing, good cinematography, and good acting" are, by definition, objectively good. Seems so simple it's as though it was fabricated by the mental midgets who actually believe it; I'm no culinary expert but I can tell you food tastes better when the ingredients are really good. I'm also not a scientist but I believe matter is at its strongest when it contains elements. Point is, the film bros are adamant about that figmental weather gauge that's been calibrated by the uppity critics and out-of-touch filmmakers who they admire and respect - until they have a difference of opinion regarding the state of Modern Cinema.
Quentin recently came under fire for his daring observation that there are simply too many remakes nowadays. That's right, the moviegoing public unanimously vilified a genuine Film Expert for expressing an interest in risk and originality; as if to say "no, we want more remakes". Coppola, Gilliam, Cronenberg, Villeneuve, Nolan, Ridley Scott, and Alejandro González Iñárritu have all joined Scorsese in publicly disparaging the Comic Book scene, and while the general response is "ok boomer, you don't know what good cinema is", the bootlickers don't have the resolve (or the cognitive dissonance) to defend these foul franchises; it's a wasteland of guilty pleasures, and when the fans are forced to confront that guilt, they lash out with the very ugliness that gives the World Wide Web its reputation. To agree with these giants of filmmaking (regardless of whenever their prime was) would be admitting to your own poor taste, but when we assert that "art has the potential to be objectively good and correct", to whom do we look to set the dial? And I have to assume that this idea of "correct" and "well-crafted" Cinema is gaining so much traction because of the ongoing decline in quality - but that statement in and of itself reveals my own subjectivity. I guess what I'm really pushing for is a truer and more nuanced appreciation from my peers; for people to have the bravery and ability to articulate their own feelings, rather than just being like "let someone else do it". If for no better reason than I'd personally like a better understanding as to why they keep droving out for this dreck.
I've always remained publicly sensitive about people's love for a lotta these big franchise films - particularly the Comic Book Movies. My polite excuse has repeatedly been "I've not seen many of them so I can't judge either way", but I should think everyone's been perfectly able to see through my bullshit: I've got a pretty strong understanding of how studio marketing and movie trailers and posters work, and if they're doing their jobs adequately then I'm obviously not seeing these films on purpose. And I say it time and time again - I don't care that they're "Comic Book Movies"; I've seen protagonists and antagonists and explosions before so this isn't some entirely new genre that's too intelligent or innovative to grasp (or too dumb or disorienting to dismiss). But this sort of passionless platform of unrelatable characters and expository dialogue and pushbutton animation and an obnoxious preoccupation with continuity and cameos and mythology is never gonna be appealing to me -- and those are just the superficial elements; some years ago I was in a situation where there was a TV nearby with a Captain America movie playing on mute, and just watching the cutting and compositions of basic dialogue scenes and the transitions between them didn't feel too dissimilar to the countless student films I saw in school. Put differently, even when I disregard how vapid the content is, it's presented in a laughably amateurish way - and it's frustrating because I think even the fans know this to be true.
My son recently said something along the lines of "I only wanna see movies I like with characters I know." While that 6-year-old mentality may be publicly prevalent, it takes the honesty of a child to say it out loud. My plan was to go to my grave having never watched Beetlejuice 2, but once he found out about its existence and release it would've been extremely petty of me to prevent him from seeing it. Miraculously, the movie made me feel as though I was a child again - specifically when I got an overwhelming urge to lie down in the aisle of the movie theater out of immense boredom. What a puerile miscarriage of a movie, but the otherwise agreeable audience reception was a loud indicator that microwaved leftovers will always be preferable to trying new things. Fans of Zack Snyder will tell you that one of his strengths is that his adaptations are "comic book accurate", as if to say he dares not deviate into anything too intensely original. It doesn't matter how godawful the STAR WARS prequels were, they'll remain superior to the Disney Sequels because they never colored outside the lines. And so I don't scratch my head in bewilderment when whatever remaining theaters that are left are filled with video game graphics and ramshackle nostalgia; You get what you fucking deserve!
We were only a few years into the new millennium when it had occurred to me that it'd been a long time since I'd seen a truly original movie - like, roughly since the beginning of the 2000s; big or small, Indie or Hollywood, the heavy rotation of life-changing Cinema had seemed to come to a halt. That was it? 18 years old and I'd completely lost touch with what was new and exciting? I'd like to say it was a slump, but here we are, and there doesn't seem to be any Enlightenment or Renaissance creeping up on us any time soon, and it all coincides with that Y2K changeover. And it's not hard to understand why...
This century began with a sorta "Four Horseman of the Apocalypse": STAR WARS, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Spider-Man. You could argue there were more, or implicate others, or defend these because you liked them, but it is undeniable that they've cast an everlasting shadow from under which we will not escape for a long time; nearly 25 years of pronounced cultural stagnation and it is in no doubt due largely to the success of these four conglomerates of Fantasy and Action that captured the hearts and minds of audiences and producers alike. Nearly all media has attempted to match the model created by these four installments and the only new measures we've seen is some lateral expansion: nothing new, just more of this. The urge to binge multiplied by the advent of streaming; radio serials updated for lower standards and shorter attention spans. TikTok and all that. In an age where we spend $400 million on shaky special effects and turn on subtitles just for fun, visuals and writing seem to be weaker than ever. The storytelling angle has become the singular focus, and the central theme of these stories are all the same: "Here's stuff you remember from before, and be sure to stick around for more." They've become a goddamn bingo card; a system of checks and balances to ensure absolute satisfaction with no loose ends. It's become STAR WARS Prequels x 1000. In 2023, Fangoria Editor-in-chief Phil Nobile Jr. observed the following:
Of course he's able to melt down my entire complaint into a single paragraph - and it so eloquently explains why a moviegoing public can't cope with a shirtless Kylo Ren or a singing Joker -- "this absolutely does not fall in line with what I'm used to!" With this kind of dogmatic approach to art - to anything - how could there ever be progress? Here, I'll make an objective observation: 20th Century Cinema was better. Everyone goddamn knows it, otherwise they wouldn't keep tryna remake the shit every two bastard weeks. Danny DeVito once said something to the effect of "Hollywood will keep trying until they get it wrong." Can't really say it's their fault - the public fights originality in every possible form; for better or worse we got a wholly original Barbie doll movie and the common reaction was "Welp, Hollywood has officially run outta idea."
People don't just form their opinions based on the consensus, they hijack it entirely; we know what all the good and bad movies are because those areas have been drilled, and the emergence of social media keeps us up to date on the new stuff. I used to love riding on the bandwagon and sharing the excitement and adoration of The New Big Thing but I didn't come to make friends - my connection to the movie came first, and if it didn't happen for me then that was my cross to bear. It's difficult to share a conflicting point of view nowadays without fear of coming across as attention-seeking or problematic, so the leading lesson I'm preaching is this: dare to feel what you feel without bending to unanimity or licking boot, and make sure you have the vocabulary and the valor to back it up -- because they'll come for you.
- Paul
Posts
%20%20edt.jpg)
