Left: Bradley Cooper (foreground left) as Chris Kyle in American Sniper (2014), hero or menace? Right: My Name is Khan (2010) … and I am not a terrorist!
As I noted in my commentary on genre-snobbery in film criticism, film style supersedes film content and films must be judged on their terms if we consider ourselves to be true, objective lovers of cinema. Using a particular movie as a case-study for sociological analysis, for instance, in which complete disregard of the study of cinematic craft is acknowledged from the start is one thing; posing as an objective reviewer of film only to slam (or praise) a project based on how well its political dialogue meshes with one’s own personal viewpoints is the height of hubris and deceptive criticism.
It is not criticism at all, as a matter of fact. Stating hyperbolic assessments of movie content as fact is at best twisting a would-be work of art into a crude mouthpiece for one’s own opinions, and at worst it’s outright lying. Film criticism should, in theory, be as close to objective as every cinephile can muster. Using films as personal soapboxes is in fact close-minded subjectivity, and an all too common practice that I find repulsive.
There are two main kinds of politicized film banter that prevent objective analysis of films on their terms: Arguments that use the political and social content of a film — irrespective of a film’s artistic quality or portrayal of said content — as an arbitrary bonus when “reviewing” said film, or the use of a film’s content to criticize or malign that project. I refer to the former as politically correct (PC) crutches and the latter as politically correct potshots. PC crutches are subjective arguments made by ostensible film critics relating to a movie’s sociopolitical content, which artificially bolsters a movie’s reputation. PC potshots are the opposite arguments, unfair criticisms of a given film for not articulating the “correct” viewpoint that agrees with a particular critic.
Once again, it is important to stress that neither analyses are actual film reviews, or are legitimate analyses of any kind. Using the arbitrary content of a picture to either heckle or holler a particular viewpoint is skewed misjudgment in the extreme, a knee-jerk reaction that has no place in film theory or criticism. Also worth repeating are the exceptions when films are used outside of cinephilia and film studies for research in other disciplines, be they sociology, biology, art history, political science, or what have you. Using film culture and content for references outside the craft of filmmaking is fine, so long as the author makes explicit disclaimers that his or her particular analysis is disregarding the actual craft of a specific film, that he or she is analyzing it for non-film study related purposes, and any comments they do make to the methodology or style of a particular film is their own subjective opinion — not an attempt at thoughtful, objective analysis on the film’s own terms.
EXAMPLES OF PC CRUTCHES: Most individuals who use PC crutches to inflate the value of mediocre to bad movies are left-wing critics who focus on the alleged diversity of a movie’s cast or its otherwise “progressive,” “groundbreaking” social justice-oriented content. On the other hand, some times conservatives will find some mindless, faux-patriotic, pro-military jargon to which they can jerk off in bad movies, too. Some of my favorite examples of PC crutches in film criticism include The Fast and the Furious (2000-present) franchise, whose cardboard characters, bland performances, and cartoonish action are overlooked because of its racially diverse cast, Tyler Perry’s Madea (2005-2019) franchise, whose lame, dated cross-dressing antics are ignored due to its quasi-blaxploitation overtones, Paul Feig and Melissa McCarthy’s bizarre “girl-power” comedies (e.g. Bridesmaids [2011], Ghostbusters [2016]), whose lowbrow jokes, gag humor, and dialogue-driven humor are given a pass for emphasizing majority-female casts, and of course, all manner of Oscar-bait.
Top: Given the prevalence of obesity in the United States, we “need” plus-sized role models more than ever. Bottom: Chris Pratt: “You wanna consult here or… in my bungalow?” Bryce Dallas Howard: “That’s not funny.” Chris Pratt: “Eh, it’s kinda funny!“
Act of Valor (2012), a glorified feature-length commercial for the United States military, featuring real US Navy Seals portraying fake characters in a made-up story, is an exception to the liberal PC crutch-rule; its sappy, heavy-handed patriotism and comical dialogue were overlooked by conservatives because, well, they love shallow, halfhearted propaganda on behalf of the military industrial complex.
EXAMPLES OF PC POTSHOTS: Like PC crutches, PC potshot arguments used to criticize films for daring to challenge viewers’ political views are dominated by the left of center. We are, after all, discussing “political correctness.” Then again, in this age of ailing, aging conservatives, there’s more than enough misogynistic, racist banter to go around for the truly desperate. A few of my favorite examples include Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper (2014), which was lambasted by critics for its supposed nationalist justification for the Iraq War, not to mention its depiction of the controversial, unabashedly conservative US special forces sniper, Chris Kyle; other examples include people’s weird overreaction to Bryce Dallas Howard and Chris Pratt’s chemistry in Jurassic World (2015), which was described as sexist; a brief cutaway to Alice Eve undressing and Benedict Cumberbatch’s casting as the fictional character, Khan Noonien Singh, in Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013), which were described as sexist and racist, respectively; and Slumdog Millionaire (2008, a British production directed by Danny Boyle), which was criticized by South Asians as demeaning for portraying (realistic) conditions of Indian slums.
Let us also not forget the scores of conservative morons who tore The Force Awakens (2015) a new one for portraying Daisy Ridley’s lead, Rey, as “a Mary Sue.” Also worth mentioning are the weird left and right-wing criticisms of Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty (2012), which liberals criticized for its (realistic) depiction of torture used by the Central Intelligence Agency, while conservatives whined it was a Trojan Horse propaganda piece for Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. I’m not making this shit up, people.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Few things in film culture irritate me more than people using movies as their political mouthpiece. What’s even worse are how so few film journalists, critics, and fans articulate the importance of film style over content.
As I stated in my reaction to the public announcement of this year’s (2015’s) Oscar-nominations, art does not exist to address social injustices. It shouldn’t, because then we get stuck with cringe-worthy, heavy-handed, sleep-inducing projects like 42 (2013), The Kids are Alright (2010), and whatever the hell Crash (2006) was.
I hate to break it to people on both ends of the political spectrum, but a film’s worth is not dependent on whether it agrees with your personal views. Even if you hate the argument a particular film may be making, you can’t blame the film itself or label it as an inferior artistic piece for not regurgitating your own beliefs back at you. By that same logic, nor can you laud a movie and label it superior for reflecting those beliefs. Individual interpretations of a movie’s thematic content are fine, but ignoring the manner in which a film delivers its message and judging it solely on its thematic existence is not fair to the art of filmmaking at all.
When I complain about something like, say, Avatar (2009), and its heavy-handed structure, I don’t slam the film for glorifying hippies or environmentalism — hell, I’m pro-environmentalism and agree with its stance on Western foreign policy. However, I largely can’t stand the film because its characters are reduced to caricatures, its dialogue is hamfisted and preachy, and a 1/3 of the film is visually boring. Do you see what I’m saying? I agree with the film’s politics, its literal content, but I roll my eyes at the portrayal of those politics because the film’s style is altogether rather manipulative.
Conversely, I’m certain I disagree with Clint Eastwood on most political issues, I don’t relate at all to the real-life or fictional movie-Chris Kyle, nor do I agree with the American Iraqi campaign — and yet, I liked American Sniper quite a bit because its style was interesting to me. I liked the action, I was impressed by its thoughtful analysis of PTSD, and I appreciated its rather unbiased portrayal of Kyle’s conservative, close-minded persona.
Top: Indians, I get it: You’re tired of Westerners confusing Slumdog Millionaire for Bollywood, and most of you would prefer 3-hour, melodramatic soap-opera power-fantasies that distract you from the fact that millions of people do live in South Asian slums. Bottom: But speaking of offense to Hindu culture…
Even though I agreed with Avatar’s politics, I disliked its style, so I gave it a bad review. Even though I disagree with Eastwood, Kyle, and most of American Sniper’s audience’s stance with regards to the Iraq War, I was impressed by the film’s craft, so I gave the film a positive review. I reviewed these films on the basis of whether they succeeded or failed as films, first.
That’s what I try to do with every review. While one can argue that it is impossible to quantify each and every film’s quality relative to another, I believe certain movie reviews are superior to others. If you spend the majority of your “film critiques” arguing that certain people should get roles over others because of their racial background or sexual identity, or how certain films are better than others because they boast more cast-members of color, or that a movie’s screenplay is superior because it portrays this particular political group as bad and another political organization as good… then stop claiming you love movies, because you don’t.
If you are so close-minded that you judge a film based on how much it agrees or disagrees with your view of the world, than your review of that film, your understanding of cinema, is inferior. To quote Oscar Wilde:
“There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all… All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.
“Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless.”
Express Elevator to Hell 
I’ve never liked the Spice Girls. Years ago I heard a great song on the radio and hunted it down. It was by Geri Halliwell of the Spice Girls! I still liked it and bought it (these were the days before streaming and downloading.)
The first half of this post had me confused because there are film makers who are overtly political or social in their art and want to provoke debate beyond the art of film making, but your point became more clear from the paragraph about Avatar. A film can contain a social or political message, but enjoyment and analysis of the film as an art form should be kept separate.
That is quite correct. I’ve also enjoyed films whilst hating some kind of intended or unintended message. I still insist the politics behind Man of Steel, whether Nolan intended them or not, are grotesque, but I enjoyed the film as a mindless superhero caper. (I would have enjoyed it less without Antje Traue, and I know we differ in opinion on the film’s ‘dark realism’ style.)
But I do agree that anyone who disregards a film’s artistic quality because they hate the message is cutting off their nose to spite their face. I’ve seen a Star Trek fan making enormous effort not to laugh at Ezzie Izzard doing a routine about Star Trek. For several years I watched most of Krzysztof Kieslowski’s output; I appreciated the politics of his films and the games he played with Communist authority and censorship, but I’ll whisper it, some of those films were so boring!
There is no obligation on an audience to appreciate the message if the vehicle used to convey it is of shoddy quality. An no one should ignore shoddy quality simply because they agree with the artist’s intentions.
Posted by The Opening Sentence | September 30, 2015, 4:59 amI suppose I should’ve made my point clearer that these sentiments were directed more at viewers, not necessarily filmmakers themselves. You’re absolutely correct that many films are overtly political and seek to provoke action beyond simple cinematic appreciation.
However, I believe that, generally speaking, politically minded filmmakers are able to approach the craft and style of their medium before the message itself, because they are, you know, *filmmakers.* Paul Verhoeven, John Carpenter, Steven Spielberg, and Christopher Nolan come to mind. I don’t think many, if not most viewers, are able to distinguish between the two.
Furthermore, a good portion of films that try so hard to be politically insightful or socially inflammatory *do* suffer from their inability to put the style over content, the packaging over the product. Ask any advertiser or public speaker or politician, and they will always tell you that how you say something is much more important that what you’re actually saying when trying to persuade people to do something, and that mindset describes art and cinema perfectly. Many documentaries (e.g. Food Inc., An Inconvenient Truth, etc.) fail to preach beyond the choir because they foolishly believe all they need are facts and good research to sway public opinion and insight change. Ha! I wish…
I’ve been described as “a cinema purist” by my peers, and while I suppose the boot does fit, I strongly believe that all cinephiles, movie-buffs, movie-lovers (whatever you want to call them/us), should identify with that mindset and be able to separate personal, subjective reactions from objective film criticism. Due to groupthink human behavior and PC culture on both sides of the aisle, most people and most professional film critics are unable to do this.
Posted by The Celtic Predator | September 30, 2015, 10:43 amIt’s a persistent problem I suppose that must tax some of the best film making minds. How to use a mass media form of entertainment to make a serious point, knowing that a large part of the audience wouldn’t recognise a serious point if it slapped them in the face.
And for the conscientious viewer, there are times when you feel like chewing off your own arm because of the hamfisted attempts to get the message across. Michael Moore springs to mind.
Posted by The Opening Sentence | September 30, 2015, 12:53 pm