zlacker

[parent] [thread] 15 comments
1. munk-a+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-09-07 16:53:32
I think your statement is quite a bit more correct if you just remove the "political correctness" option. Critic scores are based on marketing budgets - award shows in particular are funded by immense amounts of prestige lobbying.
replies(3): >>baryph+74 >>contra+ra >>pnatha+qu
2. baryph+74[view] [source] 2023-09-07 17:09:31
>>munk-a+(OP)
I'm not sure I agree, but it would be worth studying empirically. The film Strange World, for instance, bombed, but has a 72% on RT and is certainly politically correct. It was quite poorly marketed.[0] While studios aren't in the habit of sharing marketing budgets, we can safely say the marketing expenditure was low.

This is a single datapoint, but my hypothesis is that political correctness does indeed account for a measurable (beyond noise) portion of a RT score. Marketing spend probably matters more, and genuinely excellent non-PC films (say, Oppenheimer) can succeed without PC, but PC does contribute.

[0]https://fandomwire.com/theyve-been-barely-advertising-it-unt...

replies(1): >>ryandr+ic
3. contra+ra[view] [source] 2023-09-07 17:32:13
>>munk-a+(OP)
Critics are definitely sensitive to, for lack of a bettet word, elitist themes. I don't mean to say that they reflect the elite, but rather an elite.

Which is kind of inevitable because how else would you choose who becomes a critic other than choosing someone whose idea of quality is at least somewhat close to those of the artists, producers and other critics.

replies(1): >>tpmx+Om
◧◩
4. ryandr+ic[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 17:39:35
>>baryph+74
What even makes one movie politically correct and another one not? The phrase has been watered down to the point where I think it now just means "vaguely liked by one political team and disliked by the other." So instead of using a meaningless euphemism, OP should articulate what exact themes, stories, or characters they think lead to a good critic score?
replies(4): >>cyrial+Nh >>phpist+Tk >>Walter+Nm >>baryph+S41
◧◩◪
5. cyrial+Nh[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 18:00:17
>>ryandr+ic
I agree, I feel like it's being used similar to "woke" and "anti-woke".
◧◩◪
6. phpist+Tk[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 18:11:27
>>ryandr+ic
Simple "politically correct" films put the political narrative ahead of all things including historical accuracy, established canon, accuracy to other media (books, games, etc), scientific accuracy, or even good story telling.

They focus first on their political objectives, their political views, and what political issues they wish to advocate for above all else

This has been an increasing trope in modern film and shows.

"The narrative" is now even a meme... The other coded phrase for a "politically correct" film is "re-imagined for a modern audience"

replies(2): >>ryandr+yq >>one_le+tO
◧◩◪
7. Walter+Nm[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 18:19:12
>>ryandr+ic
The rules are even codified:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/osca...

replies(1): >>ryandr+KI
◧◩
8. tpmx+Om[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 18:19:15
>>contra+ra
I think this is one of the better examples of that:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/orville/s01 (critics: 31%, audience: 93%)

vs

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/star_trek_discovery/s01 (critics: 82%, audience: 49%)

(S02 of The Orville got very few but great reviews from the critics, it hadn't really changed much IMO.)

◧◩◪◨
9. ryandr+yq[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 18:34:08
>>phpist+Tk
Political narrative? Can we get even more vague? That's what I was getting at: People complain about movies and their "political narratives" and "political objectives" but nobody wants to mention specific narratives or objectives, and why they object to them. I don't recall anything overtly political in most modern movies. There was no campaign speech to elect Biden in the latest Captain America. So what exact "narratives" is everyone complaining about? Be specific.

EDIT: Ugh, looks like replier reached for personal attacks, so this thread has sadly derailed into flamewar :( Hitting the eject button.

replies(1): >>phpist+us
◧◩◪◨⬒
10. phpist+us[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 18:43:28
>>ryandr+yq
Either you are living under a rock, are being purposely obtuse, or support the politics being pushed so you either do not see it or just willfully ignore it.

>There was no campaign speech to elect Biden in the latest Captain America

This is just a stupid statement

>I don't recall anything overtly political in most modern movies.

Snow White, Indian Jones 5, Just about Every Marvel Movie Past infinity War, 2 of the 3 Star Wars Films in the new Trilogy, The Little Mermaid... Shall I go on?

It is more pronounced in TV Shows however, She Hulk, Season 2 and 3 of Witcher, Rings of Power, etc etc etc

>So what exact "narratives" is everyone complaining about?

For starters [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPE7-PRL0M8

This that just just the tip of the ice berg...

replies(1): >>dragon+Xs
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
11. dragon+Xs[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 18:45:08
>>phpist+us
> Snow White, Indian Jones 5, Just about Every Marvel Movie Past infinity War, 2 of the 3 Star Wars Films in the new Trilogy, The Little Mermaid... Shall I go on?

That's a list of movies, not an identification of political content in movies.

12. pnatha+qu[view] [source] 2023-09-07 18:50:34
>>munk-a+(OP)
s/political correctness/art world correctness/ is probably a better phrasing.

The art world is a _thing_, with tastes that can vary quite a bit from mid-brow average consumers. Its sensitive in its own way to "PC" and lobbying, but is distinct to a degree (albeit entangled, naturally).

◧◩◪◨
13. ryandr+KI[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 19:50:57
>>Walter+Nm
Got it. So the specific issue is that women and underrepresented minority groups are being included in casts and crews, and that an award show is adding such inclusion to their criteria... and that's "politically correct". Huh, okay.. Anyway... I'm glad at least someone's being specific--thanks!
◧◩◪◨
14. one_le+tO[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 20:21:14
>>phpist+Tk
Isn’t this just dependent on the political views the person brings to the movie?

Recent history has shown us that any narrative can be termed “political” if it helps one side drive a narrative.

Just look at the faux outrage over induction ovens and banning beers. Completely fabricated nonsense used to drive a narrative. This is the true trope.

◧◩◪
15. baryph+S41[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 21:44:02
>>ryandr+ic
Let's use a less contentious topic: FOSS vs proprietary software. There is a common sentiment I've seen on HN that FOSS is superior to proprietary software, and all else being equal, I agree with that sentiment. However, in reality, not all else is equal. Some proprietary software is just better at solving certain problems than FOSS equivalents – maybe the proprietary software is more reliable or has a better UX or is more regularly maintained or has more features a user wants or differs along a host of other dimensions. Thus, if someone makes a categorical claim that all FOSS software is superior to similar proprietary software, we would regard that comment as propaganda. This doesn't mean that FOSS software is bad or that good FOSS software can't be created or that no one should try to create excellent FOSS software.

This is an analogy or what I mean by "political correctness" (or related concepts like "wokeness" and "social justice warrior"). Great art communicates truth about the human condition in a beautiful way. This is, of course, open to interpretation, yet somehow many people agree that, for example, The Godfather is a great film. Why? I believe the film shows us some truth about the human condition (particularly our ability to descend into evil) through a gripping story with excellent characters, visuals, dialogue, plotting, etc.

When we substitute an arbitrary checklist of criteria a film must meet that have nothing to do with communicating truth about the human condition in a beautiful way, we are engaging in "political correctness," and we have ceased to value art but instead propaganda. For instance, if we were to use the new Academy standards for Oscar-nominated movies, the Godfather would fail – the cast is almost all white, has no LGBT and IIRC includes the n-word. Amadeus, another excellent film (one of the most praised in Oscar history) would certainly fail, since the cast is all white and almost entirely male, as we would expect from a film set in 18th century Vienna. This does not mean great art cannot have diverse casts, LGBT characters or a lack of "problematic" content. For a recent example, the excellent show Andor ticks almost all of the DEI checkboxes – LGBT character(s), diverse cast –, but it also has smart writing, interesting characters, sensible plots, beautiful visuals and a compelling story. As long as the former are subordinated to the latter, a work remains art and not "politically correct" propaganda. At the same time, Oppenheimer ticks almost none of the DEI checkboxes and yet is arguably one of the best films of this century.

> So instead of using a meaningless euphemism, OP should articulate what exact themes, stories, or characters they think lead to a good critic score?

I think this comment betrays exactly what I'm critiquing. Great art can't be shoved in a box like this. Mediocre art has identifiable flaws - maybe it's visually bland or maybe the dialogue is poor or the characters act in inexplicable ways. These all detract from the beauty and truth of the work.

replies(1): >>ryandr+Mh3
◧◩◪◨
16. ryandr+Mh3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-08 15:09:46
>>baryph+S41
You took the time to write out a thoughtful reply so I'll respond, even though this article and thread is long in the past.

I'm not sure what FOSS has to do with any of this, so I'll leave that be. For The Godfather, obviously what counts as Great Art is subjective. I think the idea of greatness can change as the public's norms/values change over time. A lot of people look back at classic movies from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and say "Yea that was a great movie for its time, but measured using today's moral yardstick--yow! Some of that stuff is actually not so good."

If The Godfather was made today, who could say whether the cast and crew would be more diverse? It probably would be, at least the crew. Would that make it any better or worse a film? There's no way to know. Maybe the creative leadership positions, financiers, and distribution companies would be more diverse. Would that make it a better or worse movie? Would The Godfather somehow not have been able to show truth about the human condition if its executive producer was black?

Times have changed. "Ticking DEI checkboxes" as you put it, should not be difficult--or even something a studio has to consciously think about. If you're a business or studio and are up all night sweating bullets about "Oh lord how am I going to tick DEI checkboxes," you're doing something fundamentally very, very, very wrong in your business. Your point about Andor supports this: A studio can easily do this (respect the norms of today) and still make a great movie!

[go to top]