“Rita Moreno was right there telling people that putting her in brownface was stupid. But how could they possibly know the truth? They didn’t have a view on that issue yet, right?”

Well, not entirely, but looking at things though a 1961 lens, as we should per my argument, we see that the idea of actors wearing…

Also came down to say this about Chernobyl. I think it’s easier for us as Americans to accept when the actors are British. Maybe it’s because we think Brits are great actors, or maybe because it just seems vaguely European. 

You use problematic without quotes, as if it’s a truism that movies whose politics are controversial to leftist critics in the current time NEED to be criticized. That’s not the case! Did you see Ex Machina? Did you criticize it for its handling of robot-human relations? Of course not. Because you don’t view that as…

“But a blanket “politics are irrelevant to art” just seems fundamentally wrong.”

Oh I don’t know. The West Side Story one veered too heavily, for me at least, into hand-wringing “oh this is so problematic!” territory and the Cleopatra one suggested it was cultural appropriation or whatever for Liz Taylor to play her (notwithstanding Cleopatra wasn’t Egyptian) and I worry in advance for…

“Could it be that you are already living in a culture wherein a plethora of critical points of view are available?”

You don’t think there’s becoming an *acceptable* point of view in film circles? I feel that saying you enjoyed Green Book (which I did, though it didn’t sniff my Top 10 and I’d have preferred Roma for BP)…

“Could it be that you are already living in a culture wherein a plethora of critical points of view are available?”

You don’t think there’s becoming an *acceptable* point of view in film circles? I feel that saying you enjoyed Green Book (which I did, though it didn’t sniff my Top 10 and I’d have preferred Roma for BP)…

“it seems silly and artificial to ask people to disavow their politics and pretend to be a blank slate while watching a movie.”

Why? When I go to Paris I marvel at the beauty of Sacre Couer. It’s a magnificent piece of architecture. Must i scorn it because it was built as a big, giant symbol of conservatism in the wake…

Your dinosaur takes are amusing.

“That D’Angelo review sounds to me like it fulfilled the basic critical objective of a review...but it explains what D’Angelo disliked about the film in a way that allowed you to decide that, despite his dislike, you might find the documentary worth seeing.”

I haven’t read the Taming of the Shrew since 10th grade so I don’t have many thoughts on it, but I am not outraged that a 400 year old work has gender politics that don’t play well today, no.  

Many, many people born around 1985.  Just quote Billy Madison around them and watch the results 

Nice answer. If people on the internet approached older movies and art like you did above, I’d be all for it. But this

I stated, right up front, that this particular one wasn’t as bad (as, say, the West Side Story entry in this series).  So not sure who’s got awareness problems.  

I think you’re misunderstanding my point, and it might be my fault. There are certain things in political discussion called valence issues. What that refers to is issues that everyone agrees broadly on, they just disagree on how to go about them. So, for example, schools. Or the economy. Both sides want good schools…

Well the 21st century thusfar has been way better than the 20th, so hey!

The difference, I think, is that we have much more of a shared (and certainly less controversial) consensus on what makes good filmmaking. Pacing, acting, characterization - we can disagree on all of these things, of course, but we’ll probably mainly agree on the fundamental tenets.

“It’s how we learn to be better.”

To have a conversation, right? We can disagree on art analysis, discuss things, maybe convince each other 1% on something. Isn’t that what this is all about? Not sure why everyone gets so serious. WE’re taking about My Fair Lady, for God’s sake

“A straw man is when you characterize your opponent’s arguments falsely”Right. For example, no one here is is using politics as their “primary lens”, and no one here is asking if this advances their politics. Yet these are still two points that you thought needed to be made