Jim Sterling once did an entirely objective game review. It was boring as hell and also completely pointless as far as the review was concerned, but the statement it still contained be it an ironic one was hilarious. So in in essence a hilariously boring review with no point the made a clever statement... #ThankGODForJimF******SterlingSON
The hoops Moviebob has jump through to not get these videos taken down by the auto-copyright enforcer is getting pretty damn ridiculous. Now it isn't even enough just with the super thick borders, reversed video, muted sound and super short clips. Now he also has to add an obnoxious jitter to the whole image. UA-cam, please fix your automatic copyright enforcer. This is getting ridiculous. Fair use exists for a reason. The way Moviebob uses film clips in his video is so obviously fair use, that he should not have to do any special tricks to avoid the copyright system.
It is almost impossible to separate artist from art, since they use their art to convey their beliefs and reveal something about their personalities and experiences. I'm going to probably ruin The X-Files for many of you when I say that its creator, Chris Carter, unironically believes many of the same things as Alex Jones, conspiracy theorist, Trump praise singer, and giant mutant potato filled with farts and paranoid rage.
In an example from outside of film, or indeed the things you'd normally think of when you think of the word art: Chris Benoit. Up until he did what he did, he was easily one of my favorite wrestlers alive, always putting on awesome matches and having amazing intensity. But about a year ago I went back and was re-watching every episode of WCW Nitro from the start, and one of the feuds is the one between him and Kevin Sullivan. The one that led to Nancy leaving Kevin and marrying Chris in real life. Yeah. Try not to watch THAT feud without thinking about what happened later.
I had been thinking that Bob's recent output has slipped a couple of notches in quality. This was right back to the good stuff - detailed knowledge of films and film making, coupled with relevant info about new upcoming films. Great discussion of a long-running issue in art criticism combined with of-the-moment issues. Even the new style of graphics are looking good. Fantastic stuff.
I can get swearing-angry-geek videos from loads of places. Thoughtful, well informed geek-commentary is much harder to come by. I understand that the lurid stuff gets the views (especially the DC and Pixels stuff), but it's intelligent stuff like this where Bob really shines (that, and his knowledge of obscure weirdness - looking forward to schlock-tober!)
I completely agree. He seemed quite bitter after his break with the escapist. I watched him because he was erudite and thoughtful. If I just wanted to see people scream swear words, that's what the crazy people by the bus stop is for. I stuck with him and contributed to his patreon because I thought he might get back to form, and he seems to be getting there gradually.
Really good video, Bob. I'd say that another aspect of not involving the artist would be "don't let the artists opinions about their work influence yours". Like when JK Rowling said that Dumbledore was gay. I'd sure like to believe he was, but the art itself didn't reflect it. If Mark Twain came out of his grave and said that Huck Finn was supposed to be a pro-slavery novel, it wouldn't and shouldn't change my reading of it. That's just what I think about that other topic, though. Great video!
+Joseph Devine How does Dumbledore being gay affect you enjoyment of the piece? How does it affect any part of reading the books? Why should you care? What Rowling said is a great thing to analyze by itself. If she had said "Dumbledore is straight", would you be here saying the same thing?
Good on you, Bob. Sometimes knowing who the artist is doesn't really change your reaction, but other times it provides that valuable thing called "context" which is the decorative frame within which the art exists. Other similar context items that exist outside the art itself are things like "is this a sequel or a remake?". That's context that will affect how you experience and understand and appreciate the given piece of art, and if you found out about it afterwards it would necessarily make you re-examine it. Or when DeNiro dials in an underwhelming average performance in a mediocre film, it's worth remembering and pointing out that this isn't just some run of the mill Joe, it's Robert DeNiro giving you a blah performance.
The one thing I think this missed is that paying to consume an artist's media is directly supporting the artist, and positively reviewing an artist is encouraging others to support them. And some artists absolutely do not deserve our support.
I think the best summary for this video is "If you are only writing about, say, Sully as a pretext to talk bout Clint Eastwood as a political figure. Well... that's ok too, actually. *It's just maybe not a review*." Some movie/video games/comic/art in general critics want to go over to other areas where their expertise is limited. Sometimes really really limited. Keeping objectives clear is good to keep some modicum of control and responsibility over your message.
When I first read Frank Miller I enjoyed it but after learning more about him and his ideologies, beliefs etc. My perspective completely changed and I don't enjoy them anymore.
I don't know. I don't agree with him but I can't say he is definitely, unquestionably wrong I can say "I think" he is wrong but I can't say it like a fact it is just my opinion not a fact.
I've found "separate the art from the artist" to be less of a matter of critique and more of a matter of personal enjoyment. For example, I did not care at all for Michael Jackson as a person; however, I still enjoy plenty of his songs. If someone felt the need to discuss the artist in a critique of an album, fair enough. If you were to constantly address the artist's flaws when simply trying to listen to their music, of course it's going to piss me off, because YOU'RE the asshole in that scenario. There's a line between "addressing flaws in a review" and "not letting someone enjoy a work because you feel the need to be a jerk and kill the mood."
I've had a problem doing this 100% For example I'll still listen to a good Michael Jackson song with basically no issue, but whenever Cat Scratch Fever comes on I switch it off, despite liking the song. I'm a bit more scattershot on Guns 'N' Roses because of Axl Rose, and I SOMEHOW still watch Tom Cruise despite him being a high up member of that dumb cult of his. It's odd.
MJ is likely one of the most serious examples, because his music is going to live on longer than Beethoven. Plus, the music industry seems to cater to absolute assholes. Even people in Christian rock bands turn out to be drunk assholes. For the sake of simplification, I just think the public shouldn't idolize these musicians, or they're going to be really confused with what to do with their "Dangerous" album.
+kimarous And what about the effect the personal philosophies of the author have on people? I mean, pop culture helps shape our perceptions and feelings. Can we really ignore who made what? I'm not talking about burning all books from the Imperialist era for their Racist undertones. I'm just saying, remember who wrote that stuff when reading it.
+Malcom Chase - You're missing the point. By all means, have your views on artists... just don't be a jerk and enforce your perception on people just trying to enjoy a work on its own. Just because someone enjoys Bill Cosby's previous works doesn't mean you have to bring up his sexual assault charges every time its on - that kind of thing. People aren't there for your personal philosophy on the author's personal philosophy or past actions. Is it too much to ask that people not mention that Random Task's actor is in jail for torture and murder every time Austin Powers is on?
kimarous No, of course persecuting the guy all the time is being a jerk. But also, we can't just flat out ignore where the piece comes from, you know? I'm not saying mention it *all* the time. I'm just saying mention it *some* of the time, so we don't forget about it.
That also makes sense when you think about it in terms of TV - in particular, TV news. If you considered every bit of news on TV without considering the people who said and wrote that news, they you'd end up poorly misinformed, particularly if you switched from MSNBC to Fox News without adjusting your opinion of each.
And CNN, which tries to make itself seem impartial with great people like Anderson Cooper, but then you get Don Lemon acting like an uncle tom and having rocks thrown at him in Ferguson.
And when someone talks about the artist, it's more about how what types of art the artist usually replicates, as what Clint Eastwood makes. Only good to judge as an advancement and timeline of the artist's growth, not a discussion of themes and ideas being conveyed.
I don't really have a problem with people talking about the Authors of stuff. It just confuses me how a lot of the people who will make a fuss out of the director/writer/developer of something being an asshole are also strict Derrida-style 'Death of the Author' deconstructionists who, in every case where the intent of an author could be used to DEFEND a work, will insist that the intentions of the author are irrelevant to proper analysis of the work.
I tend to see Death of the Author applied more in the availability of facts, less in discussion of larger themes the author explores. One can do both. Like, and this is probably subjective, but, for the sake of strictly facts, canonical events, characters, actions, etc, that, I go Death of the Author. If the Author didn't bother to put it in the body of the work, it probably doesn't merit much consideration on the level of discussing the narrative. Now, if you're talking themes, symbolism, etc., then I tend to find considering the author more useful. Like, just as an example. J.K. Rowling has gone back a dozen times to add tiny tidbits to this character or that. But, for one, for years, we didn't have those details, which means you felt confident enough in the work to let us go without what could be major details. And two, with it being separated from the central body of work, it makes it impossible to assure that every reader had access to that information. Let's say, just as a for instance, someone who has no interest in social media, doesn't really do the internet much at all. They read Harry Potter. They have no idea that Dumbledor is gay, they will never find out that Harry and Hermione eventually wound up falling in love, so on and so forth. Because it wasn't important enough, or considered, for the central body of the narrative. It's less Death of the Author in the classical sense, and more, if you didn't bother to include it in the published work, it's hard to consider it seriously. Meanwhile, you've got stuff like... idk, A Serbian Film, just for a perfectly fucked up example. If you knew nothing about Serbia, it's history with regard to military, to citizenship, to conquest and rule, one would probably just come to the determination that it's a gorror film for the sake of itself. Buuuuut then to consider the author's position on the film, the metaphors they were trying to deliver, that actually changes - and I feel like this is kind of a big part here - not the narrative, but the message. The story remains monumentally fucked up, but without knowing the context of the film, the symbolism and themes of the film go largely unnoticed. TL;DR - imo, death of the author is a useful tool mainly for the analysis of narrative, discussion of the author is more useful when analyzing everything else.
death of the author is a concept that the author's perception of a works meaning isn't THE correct, be all end all, objective meaning. Examples of media where this has been particularly polarized are the book Fahrenheit 451 where the author Ray Bradburry swears its about how media like tv the internet and movies are killing both books and our ability to critically think and interact on a verbal and social level, even though the majority of people who read it will say its an anti-authoritariant/anti-fascism text holding up free speech and creative ambitiom. Theres also the case where most people think that fight club is anti capitalist and pro anarchism when the author Chuck Palahniuk says its actually making fun of hard-line anarchists and people who think that blowing up a couple Starbucks and public statues will somehow hurt western style capitalism
That phrase doesn't mean "ignore the artist completely". It means "don't let your opinions of the artist get in the way of your opinion of the art". I could hate one artist's previous work or actions or love another's, but using this phrase means I should keep my bias for or against that person away from my initial thoughts on a new work of theirs just in case that work is an outlier of my bias, so I can criticize or compliment it for what it did, instead of blindly loving or hating it because it had that one actor or director or writer that I love/hate.
The Oscars seemed to have no problem with Woody Allen so I don't see what the problem is with, at the very least, watching Birth of a Nation (which some members have said they won't)...even if Nat Parker seems remarkably non-remorseful for what he (likely) did.
I mean. Could be a race thing. It's kinda like how we all collectively agree that Chris Brown is the human equivalent of asshole cheese, but a large part of the same collective decided that Johnny Depp being abusive wasn't that big of a deal. That said, I'm kinda cool letting all three of these things go by without getting my money. Between two abusers and two racists with Mel Gibson pulling double duty, I'm good just skipping what might very well be great movies, cause I don't want them getting my cash.
+Pr0gram McSynth Between two racists and an abuser, I'd rather spend my money this week watching Kubo and Sausage Party instead. And in regards to Sausage Party's controversy regarding the wages of the animators, Rogan, Goldberg, and Vernon were not to blame for any of that. The blame solely lies of Tiernen and his company up in Canada. And with all of the news of how they were treated is up online, the best case scenario is that any future animated adult projects Rogan and Goldberg will either be with either a different studio or the same one with a higher budget now that they proved an R rated animated movie can be profitable.
Miles Bockelman I mean, for me, going to see a movie isn't a weekly indulgence because lol american wages, but, I'd agree with you. I'd rather see Kubo, partially because... Seth Rogen comedies don't do much for me and also the whole pay of the animators being akin to nothing. But, yeah. When it comes right down to it, when it comes to paying for movies, particularly on what is considered the more important period of it's release (Because most movies make more during their home release, but the bean counters don't care as much as their theatre releases) the profile of the people working on it DOES affect how I decide to spend my time or money. I don't wanna give money to rapists, abusers, racists, so on and so forth. I just woke up, so I'm a little run-off-at-the-mouth-y, sorry about that. One last thing, I really do hope animation can open up as a genre. I'm not particularly interested in Sausage Party, per say, but to open it up for other works would be... so good. SO good.
+ Pr0gram McSynth Do you think it's impossible to enjoyu an artistis work, without actually liking or supporting what that artist does in their personal lives? Because I get what you're saying, but you guys do realize that if we actually abide by this view were going to kiss alot of really good art goodbye (or at least not enjoy it as much). I mean we should stop watching anything with Sean Connery in it at a start. Also how do you know that Clint Eastwood is a 'racist?' I'm not American, and I hate Trump too, but do you really think it's wise to immediately class anyone who disagrees with you on this subject a 'racist?'
Wesker10000 Real quick - I run off at the mouth, I apologize, but I wanted to answer your questions fully. So. Uh. Long post. Point one - I think it's absolutely possible to enjoy the work of people you don't like, either on a personal level or on an ideological level. But people have the right to decide what they will and won't support. Orson Scott Card is a great example, because when I was a kid, I read Ender's Game and it was a massive influence on me. However, I did not know at the time that he's a massive homophobe who actively supports anti-lgbt initiatives, so as an adult, I chose not to support his movie, and it's why I don't own any of his books. I make a point to make sure that my money does not wind up in the hands of a person who thinks I am abhorrent. And that goes for plenty of people who's work I do or don't like. And yeah, you're gonna miss out on some stuff, but the thing is, this isn't a zero sum game. One can choose to actively avoid works done by people they find ideologically or behaviorally repulsive and still have enough media to consume for the rest of their natural born lives. You may have to venture out of the mainstream to do it, but it is entirely possible to find a ton of amazing art in every field, even if you do so with a high moral standard that you hold people to. Point two - I take calling Eastwood racist from a few places. One is absolutely his defense of Donald Trump. I say this because Trump supporters are either virulent bigots or aggressively ignorant. And I don't have any real bones about this, because if you listen to him talk, watch the way he does business or politics going back to the 80s, he is aggressively and unashamedly racist and sexist, and if one supports him, they either are too, or they're uncritical enough to fall for his demagoguery So, basically, on defending Trump, Eastwood is either racist, or he's ignorant, and I'm inclined to believe, given the skill in his writing and direction, that he's not ignorant. The other thing is looking at his writing, his writing tends to take a very White People Are The Shit, Everyone Else Kinda Sucks bent. Gran Torino is a white savior movie in that an entire community could not resist a group of hooligans, but here comes Clint Eastwood, practically messianic in his approach, who solves the issue. You've got American Sniper, which is two hours of glorifying a man who saw Muslims as vermin needing slaying. When Gran Torino came out, I wasn't a political person, I saw it, and even then, it didn't sit well with me. Point 2.5 - Do I think it's wise to lump everyone I disagree with on a subject a racist, I mean, it... depends? But also, I'm white. I tend to defer to what people of color say on a subject because, I don't have a first person handle on what does or does not negatively affect communities of color, y'dig? Like... Well, okay, going back to Orson Scott Card. I know how to feel about homophobia and transphobia. Because I'm part of the communities affected by those things. As for Eastwood, he has a history of racist writing, and he actively defends an aggressive racist, so for him specifically? Yeah, I'm 100% comfortable saying he's at least okay with racism, if not is racist himself.
I think it's important to keep the artist's life and history in mind to contextualize a film, but I also think Death of the Author is a great way to analyze art. I believe an artist's work should speak for them and they shouldn't have to explain what their intention was. Art is a two way street, not meant to be absorbed but to be interacted with, so people should be able to get different experiences from the same movie based on the context of their own life regardless of what the author meant for them to feel.
meta narrative doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is what the art tells us about existence. All that does is how existence influenced art instead of how we can learn something from art about existence.
While I know it's a film not many people have seen, I think one of the best recent example of this whole issue of artist versus art is the movie Knock, Knock. I initially watched it having heard that it was about a man being raped by women, and I was curious how they would treat the subject matter. I initially enjoyed the movie, although I was somewhat disappointed that the scene showing the protagonist getting his revenge was cut. Then I listened to some of the commentary, and was horrified to find that Eli Roth did not consider the movie to be about rape. He considered it to be about a cheater who got his comeuppance, and he consciously chose to remove the revenge scene because he felt that the main character "brought it on himself." Not going into graphic detail, the only way the events of the film could be considered cheating would be if you assume a lack of physical resistance is tantamount to consent, because Keanu Reeves' character verbally said "no" multiple times. If Eli Roth had made the exact same film, and the exact same comments, about a woman his career would be over, or at minimum he would be publicly apologizing. So, do I just view Knock, Knock as a tragic film about a rape victim, or do I take Roth's asshole intentions into account?
I dislike Hillary for her utter lack of respect for her constituents. I couldn't car less that she's a woman. I'm a proud New Yorker and she blatantly lied to every voting New Yorker when she was running for Senator. She certainly doesn't deserve a promotion.
DrSmokeTrees That's completely untrue and irrelevant. I could hate both but I'm not discussing Trump here. I'm pointing out how Bob is wrong to claim that people who dislike Hillary must be concerned about her gender.
Oh, come on, New York has a proud tradition of electing out-of-staters due to fame over substance. Sounds like your real problem is with the rest of your state's electorate.
I recently recorded a podcast on the Sword of Lancelot, which becomes a lot more interesting when you find out that the Actor, Director and Screen writer who played Lancelot was married to the actress playing Guinevere. A lot of choices in the moving make a lot of sense with the context.
One of the reasons why I think it can be silly to separate the art from the artist is that all to often the art the artist makes is dripping with their own personal politics. How can a critic separate the 2, when the artist themselves doesn't?
Another Great video Bob. The ignorant Clint Eastwood posts were a great touch. I keep forgetting how old he is. With that said I'm really Interested in seeing all these movies now. Especially Hacksaw, and Nate Turner.
Very difficult subject to tackle, unfortunately we do live in a society that condemns people even if they accidentally liked an artist work without knowing the problems of the artist themselves. Many young audiences will love Michael Jackson songs or watch someone's old Cosby Show DVD's and laugh, do we then fault them for enjoying ENTERTAINMENT?
I agree with this video but I do still try to separate the art from the artist as much as possible, it's hard and I often fail but if I didn't try then I probably wouldn't have played some of my favourite games, watched some of my favourite films and shows and so on. An example being Bob actually, I struggle to like him, I find him smug and abrasive but he's one of very few movie critics I've consistently watched and agreed with for around 4 or 5 years now, I regular seek out things he recommends because I know I'd likely enjoy it.
Congrats on the big 100k Bob! I've been a big fan for quit a while, and now that you've reached 100,000 I seriously recommend redoing your channels look. The background is still the youtube default and your icon is ok but it could be better. Hire a graphic designer or commission an artist and it'll seriously do wonders for your channel.
I always thought the art/artist separation was more on the "i really like this thing but i really don't like this person" and that was okay because while the art cannot exist without the artist you never have to agree with some one out of hand and nor are you by liking their art. It's also okay to refuse to consider that art on that same basis.
Also, when people say it's crucial to separate art from the artist, what they mean is that the finished product should stand on its own merits. It is usually necessary to talk about the artist with regards to what elements of that person's creative process made it into the piece, but the expression clarifies that an artist's rape scandal, for example, has nothing to do with the artist's film about two sets of parents attempting to resolve a dispute over their children's fight at school while doing their best to circumnavigate conservative politeness when both sets of parents hate each other. In case you missed it, rape had *nothing* to do with the plot or development of the movie. Further, an artist may create something directly about some horrible quality he has, and still be able to relate his message in a salient or interesting way, which would detach the reality of that quality as it relates to your opinion of him, because it is no longer about him, although gradients exist here.
I think it's more a matter of one's personal tolerance. For example, I can deal with an artist having a political view I think is awful (I'm a conservative. If I couldn't do this, I'd only have about a dozen movies I can watch LOL). However, I will NEVER spend money on a Woody Allen or Roman Polanski film because their conduct crossed the line into ACTUALLY HARMING PEOPLE and then using their wealth and fame to shield themselves from justice. Knowing what those men did makes me so upset and angry that I cannot get through their films no matter how good people tell me they are. And, speaking of rapists being denied justice, I find it sadly ironic that Bob condemns Nate Parker for being a rapist and then, in the same breath, proceeds to swoon about how Hillary Clinton (aka the woman who got to where she is by destroying the lives of the women her husband raped) is gonna smash the misogynist patriarchy. Like, Donald Trump is a living shitstorm; but Hillary Clinton is the living embodiment of Rape Culture.
I'm on board with about 75 percent of what you're saying here. I believe in striving for some degree of critical objectivity but I also agree that SOMETIMES you can't separate the artist from the art. I think you put it best when you said you shouldn't punish the art just because of the artist. That's as far as I'm willing to take it. But I also don't care for a lot of game reviews that deign to criticize a game for the depiction of its characters and themes. Unless, of course, it's a purely narrative experience, like the Telltale games, for example. Upvoted. As long as you can keep your political views to a minimum, I can keep watching your content without rolling my eyes. Well done. And when you can't help yourself (because you're Moviebob), at least try to curb your zeal for it like you did this tie out.
Glad to know you accept people are 'wired that way'. I disliked Ghostbusters with women from day 1 since women are not very funny, and I relate to male characters more easily. I am happy it finally is acceptable to just be yourself, a big step forward!
Myself, and a lot of other people, won't see Enders Game because of the author. So yeah, separating the artist and art can be difficult and sometimes you have to wonder if you should do it.
What bugs me the most about the phrase "separate the art from the artist" is how God damned often we have to use it. We really shouldn't, but since so damned many people use that shit is has allowed buckets of terrible people to make movies. I mean, look at how many shitty people you mentioned in this video alone there's still TONS more and it's all because of that dumb phrase. I really wish we wouldn't even use it because we need to let decent people be making the media not these gross people!
You can't separate artist from art and still have art. The artist is the main factor that decides if a work of art will be sold for thousands of dollars in any sort of gallery setting or if it will be sold for ten bucks in a bargain bin at Wal-Mart. Taking the artist out of the equation leaves you with merchandise. Not art.
That's not necessarily true. I think it's a symptom of a culture where people are not encouraged to be art-literate, so they instead rely upon the reputation of the artist. Besides, unlike most digital media, some art is not for sale at any price, so these would not count as merchandise either.
Popo Bawa Yeah, that might be a valid point when talking about "classical" works locked away in museums but most traveling display pieces are either on temporary loan from the artist who wants good examples of their work to be seen by many prospective customers or the owner/owner's estate wants the work seen but not sold. In this case we are however specifically talking about art produced by a few hundred people over the course of a few years. The only reason movies or video games count as art to begin with is because the credits are always full of artists who worked tirelessly to produce art. Take the contributions and artistic credentials out of those end credits and you are left with a mass market product produced by employees of a corporate entity. As far as movies are concerned, once you take the artists out of the equation you have taken away any comparisons to the Mona Lisa and replaced them comparisons to mass produced wall prints of the latest Disney princess.
Why are the graphics in Movie Bob videos always so...jiggly? Every time there's some added in text or images they also seem to be moving up and down slightly. What's up with that?
No, I think when people say 'separate the artist from the art' they mean they shouldn't let everything pertaining to the movie cloud their judgment (as in, the movie can be either good/bad DESPITE the moviemaker's intention or personal life).
Separating the artist from the art is done when your reading of the art happens to oppose the apparent aims of the artist. It's something you lean on when the *intent* of the art fails to live up to the results. When a movie sucks, it's no defense to say the artist tried to make it not suck. Aside that, it's mostly a matter of academic criticism, not of reviews. Those two things are worlds apart, but somehow people still fail to realize this.
Brilliant video, but what's the problem with the word "problematic"? It's just an ordinary word used to mean the thing it means. Is there some kind of gross overuse / misuse trend that I'm unaware of or something like that? Seemed like an odd little jab. Nevertheless, love the video. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Art's a part of the world and thus involves the world around it, in itself. Also there are things more important than a single example of a piece of art, therefore a single example of a piece of art doesn't get a free pass on the space in which it exists, as though it were more important than everything around it. Case in point; I think (personally, accepting that everyone draws different lines) not supporting Polanski is more important than finding out whether or not he made good movies, so I don't watch them. They could be masterpieces and I don't really give a fuck. There are other filmmakers. Cool thing about the comparison between those three films in particular too, interesting situation there.
This seems like a part 2 to your Complex Issues video from the Game Overthinker by urging an examining of meaning not present in the art and look at more meaning. I see how both critical styles you talked about, I normally don't care about the mentality of the artist (but then, I'm not a professional critic unfortunately). But then, I didn't see the new Wonderland movie because I was upset with Johnny Depp so maybe you're actually on to something here? You made me think, Bob. Thanks.
I don't care if the director or the producer is an asshole or if I disagreed with their beliefs. There are thousands of people who work on all of these projects. I bet that if I got to know all of the people who worked on Zootopia I'd find at least 10 people I disagreed with or thought were assholes. Should I view the final product any less because of those people? If I stopped all interactions with all organizations that involved a person I did not like then I better find an island and not let anyone else on because there is always an asshole in every group.
As a huge fan of the musical works of Miles Davis, Johnny Cash, Dr. Dre, Varg Vikernes and Beck I have gotten pretty good at not punishing art for the sins of its artists.
yeah that's a hard one to ignore. He was considered racist even for the time but he also helped shape modern horror. I love his works but i hate his view of...well anyone that wasn't a well off educated white man. I'll admit I'm not so worried about buying his works since he's dead and my money isn't supporting his work. But yeah i can't deny i love his writting despite the fact that he was a close minded racist.
Well we can argue that Lovecraft was a total misanthropist. Sure his racist views of other cultures can be sickening, but apart from the narrators of his stories, all the humans are either bland, assholes or idiots. And that perfectly fits the themes of cosmic horror and human insignificance. So yeah, I'm not giving a pass to Lovecraft for racism, but the fact that he was a full-on misanthropist means at least he is pretty consistent in his beliefs.
As far as I'm concerned, the core of a review is simply a general judgement of value and quality; and for some reviewers, that's all they are really concerned with. Other reviewers like delving deeper and offer additional analysis about the artist, and/or the sociopolitical circumstances surrounding the art. That approach is perfectly okay, too. Us as viewers/readers/listeners, simply need to find the critics who offer what we are looking for in a review. Some folks like a simple thumbs up or down, while others enjoy a deep dive. Personally, I like critics who can acknowledge the quality of a work in addition to their personal response. For example, if I were to review Pacific Rim I would point out its faults and then go onto to say that it is one of my favorite films of all time. There are as many tastes in art as there are people on the planet, so it's good to have a broad selection of critics with diverse approaches.
Donald Trump is not about patriarchalism, but about being an outsider (demagoge) in a political climate where people are fed up with the stableshiment. Before you ask if I support (which I don't) it really does not matter, for I'm not american.
"The establishment" is such a bullshit term. It's so overused that it's lost all meaning. Yes, there are legitimate criticisms with how our government works *but* if you're going to support a blatantly unqualified, ignorant bigot in response to that, then that just shows that you're angry at "the establishment" but you don't know why and that you're stupid enough to throw out the good along with the bad.
you're not wrong but that's not what Bob is saying here ... he's actually saying that you, as an interpreter, interpret a piece of art (partially) with your knowledge about the artist in the back of your head. A simple explanation would be Van Gogh's self portrait ... if you don't know that he painted himself it would be a completely different experience, however if you do know that he did paint himself and you also know that he cut off his own ear well then you might start to wonder why Van Gogh decided to paint the left side of his face instead of the right side.
~Or maybe that's just your interpretation of what Bob is saying??? lol Honestly I half-thought I was missing something in what Bob was saying. I don't often agree with his reviews, but this was the first just seemed "off" to me from the start. THX
So, ultimately, you are saying that to be a (professional) film critic you also have to be a pop-culture and "celebrity" critic with a detailed knowledge not only of film making and story telling but of the world, culture and personal lives of the actors, directors, writers, et al to be able to effectively discuss a film? This kind of thing is what makes someone a critic rather than simply a reviewer. I'm adamant that anyone can review a film by giving their opinion but to be a professional film critic takes this type of critical thinking that goes above and beyond personal opinion. Great discussion.
Should a person separate art and artist? Not if they already have an opinion on said artist. But they should not be obliged to consider that if they haven't already. As for 'not punishing' a movie...well if feelings about the creator effects your opinion there's no way to get around that. BUT! Unfair criticism is still something to avoid. If someone says 'I cannot support or enjoy this art because I have a problem with the creator' that is totally fair. But if they say 'this art has no merit and is terribly made' even if it is at least well made in a technical sense...well that's too far I think. Critics just need to be honest about where they stand. Their viewers can weigh that opinion however they see fit.
6:56 It's the same thing as with me whenever I watch your videos, Bob. I've heard of you doing dumb things, but I don't hold it against you. I like hearing what you have to say, I find it fascinating, and at points, very wise.
Good stuff, though I kinda disagree. If you can't find much of worth to say of a film besides what it means to the artist, then the film is probably lacking something. Take your own Really That Good series, which rarely mention the actual writers and/or directors and still find loads of interesting things to say. My problem with always binding the artist to the art is less about "excusing" movies of the crappy people making them and more about limiting interpretations. Viewing it through the lens of the artist that made it is totally legit but it's far from the only way to see a piece of art. I find that art can tell you a lot about the artist... but the artist can't tell you anything about the art.
What I have trouble with is separating art from history. Unless Birth of a Nation is 'way more honest and sophisticated than I think it will be, the screenplay is going to have to make several dozen back flips to avoid Nat Turner's real story.
He touches on the "Oscars so white" controversy without considering that maybe the Academy thought the white men gave better performances. Did Michael Fassbender in Steve Jobs give a better performance than Will Smith in Concussion? Was Idris Elba underrated in comparison to Bryan Cranston in Trumbo? Who knows? The argument of "Oscars so white" didn't add to anything accept focus on a desire to see more racially diverse nominees for the sake of it. The problem is that talking about the artist often relies on interpretation of work from the critic rather than agreed upon staplemarks of that person's work; a rough and rather skewed concept of 'artist IS the art" discussions arise. I would agree far more with David Bordwell on considering the artists within the art than Bob here.
Hey Bob! I was wondering: Since your reviews are going to show up on "geeks" youtube channel, what are you working on for your own channel? I guess "In BoB we trust" are still going to be a big part, and "Really that good?" too, but I was wondering if there is something more going on that we haven't seen yet. An update of some sort would be awesome! Cheers Bob!
Well, obviously if we're gonna judge art here like grown adults we have to co sider the artist in question and his views. However it becomes a bit trickier when we judge the art of something the artist is accused of, or believed to be. Michael Jackson and Woody Allen were never solidly found to be pedophiles by a court of law. While that doesn't mean they aren't, it also doesn't mean they ARE. So if you judge the art based on accusation, your judgement can obviously be fucking wrong if the accusation was false. Also, and specifically about the guy who made The Birth of a Nation: Why is it more controversial than the accused pedophile rapist who directed X-Men Apocalypse? Both were let off. Are you allowed to forget after some time that he might have raped some kids (and also an adult)? Because Orson Scott Card can't make coffee without people bringing up his views, which, as bad as you think they are, have not actively raped a child. And yet no talk of boycott for Singer. Maybe that's it. Maybe if BoaN's director can just make more works everyone will forget he might have raped somebody.
It's more controversial because of the subject matter of Birth of a Nation. There appears to be a moral hypocrisy in this case - alleged rapist making a "noble hero film" where he casts himself in a Jesus-like role. People don't like that. I don't like that either. Brian Singer never interrupted one of the X-men movies with a scene of himself descending in a cloud of golden light opening his arms and saying "I am here to absolve you of your sins, my children".
I do disagree here, if anything the biggest flaw for me in modern art criticism is its obsession with tying art and artist together. I'm not saying you should ignore comment on artist entirely but the purpose of artwork is often to transcend the personal circumstances of its creators and comments and analyse broader universal human themes. Of the art criticism I have read the type that focuses entirely on the artwork as a psychological outgrowth of its creator is precisely the kind I learn the least from because to me a lot of that is better used in a biography or work on a given artist's ouvre. Reducing Psycho to "hey, heres a movie about a dude that had a thing for blondes" is the most banal, shallow form of criticism there is and furthermore its a great way to never engage with any art by someobody with views that differ from yours. This may be an "agree to disagree" situation as I do often agree with Bob's assessment of movies but I dont think a reading of Mel Gibson's films constantly pointing out "hey this dude is an angry drunk with race and anti-semitism issues" is a great way to engage with the work as a work. That kind of personalizing diminishes almost any work you do it to, even a work without a "problematic" auteur.
Separating an artist from their art, though less as a reviewing thing and more of just seeing it as part of the audience, is still hard. Like yeah, I don't care how much praise Roman Polanski's entire body of filmwork gets, he loses all sympathy for what he did. And reading almost anything written by Frank Miller loses any enjoyment I would get, knowing how insane he is now. Same for people only famous for appearing nude in Playboy. I can't look at pics of Jenny McCarthy or Pam Anderson, knowing that J's spearheaded the "Vaccines give kids autism!" crusade, and P's a member of PeTA, and is now an opponent of porn.
Btw, Bob can see the future or something? 1 day after he made this video, Mel Gibsom came out to say some pretty interesting things about Batman v Superman
for me....I can seperate the art from the artist. I dont mind paying someone who did something terrible to someone to see their work if its good enough.
This is really depressing. The best some of us can do is either not watch the movie or whine about the ones making. Public outcry is something even the most narcissistic prick simply can't ignore, being stressed the fuck out by our justifiable moaning.
ciam ryan "Guyana: Crime of the Century" is the only Hollywood movie I know of. There's also the TV movie I mentioned earlier bu good luck finding that. There's also a short film called "Jonestown" from a few years back.
I was really excited to see Birth of a Nation but I'd feel genuinely awkward about paying money to see it at this point and I really doubt it'll win an Oscar considering how it'd look for the academy to award Nate Parker
Pretty sure nobody ACTUALLY cares about who directed a movie. As long as the end product is good. There more people with more important jobs working to make the movie great. Have someone point and tell people what to do, it won't be much with bad actors, a set crew, camera guys and all the other vital parts.
I try not to pay attention to the lives of the artists. Every artist in some capacity or another is shitty. They had to be to make it in the industry to get where they are, or their celebrity drove them to do shitty things. Everybody, except Chris Evans. That guy is a saint.
I honestly don't see how Sully gets on the oscar stage outside of just Hank's and Eastwood's name power. we know the story fairly well, heck flight basically do a cliff notes version of it. The other two I think are easy to see on stage particularly Hacksaw Ridge given it's unique story compared to traditional WW2 films.
Ridiculous. First, movies are made by literally thousands of people, so to single one out and anchor the whole movie to their persona is unfair. Second, I doubt most people know about the stars they criticise beyond what they read on their wikipedia page. So to claim you can see Mel Gibson's "racism" in his movies only shows you have a superficial understanding of him. Of course, the real reason to bring this crap into a review is for clicks.
Bob you gotta sort out your rendering mate. I don't know what's going on but I can't watch your stuff in fullscreen without all the overlay graphics going wibbly-wobbly.
It's funny that people who are so angry about problematic creators getting referenced were all the fuck over 2016 Ghostbusters for supposed crimes of the cast.
Jim Sterling once did an entirely objective game review. It was boring as hell and also completely pointless as far as the review was concerned, but the statement it still contained be it an ironic one was hilarious.
So in in essence a hilariously boring review with no point the made a clever statement...
#ThankGODForJimF******SterlingSON
+
+
+
+
+
The hoops Moviebob has jump through to not get these videos taken down by the auto-copyright enforcer is getting pretty damn ridiculous. Now it isn't even enough just with the super thick borders, reversed video, muted sound and super short clips. Now he also has to add an obnoxious jitter to the whole image.
UA-cam, please fix your automatic copyright enforcer. This is getting ridiculous. Fair use exists for a reason. The way Moviebob uses film clips in his video is so obviously fair use, that he should not have to do any special tricks to avoid the copyright system.
It is almost impossible to separate artist from art, since they use their art to convey their beliefs and reveal something about their personalities and experiences. I'm going to probably ruin The X-Files for many of you when I say that its creator, Chris Carter, unironically believes many of the same things as Alex Jones, conspiracy theorist, Trump praise singer, and giant mutant potato filled with farts and paranoid rage.
I’m so sorry...
In an example from outside of film, or indeed the things you'd normally think of when you think of the word art: Chris Benoit. Up until he did what he did, he was easily one of my favorite wrestlers alive, always putting on awesome matches and having amazing intensity. But about a year ago I went back and was re-watching every episode of WCW Nitro from the start, and one of the feuds is the one between him and Kevin Sullivan. The one that led to Nancy leaving Kevin and marrying Chris in real life.
Yeah. Try not to watch THAT feud without thinking about what happened later.
I had been thinking that Bob's recent output has slipped a couple of notches in quality. This was right back to the good stuff - detailed knowledge of films and film making, coupled with relevant info about new upcoming films. Great discussion of a long-running issue in art criticism combined with of-the-moment issues. Even the new style of graphics are looking good. Fantastic stuff.
Yeah, it had been a while since we got an episode this good. Probably since the super aryan stuff. This reminded me why I think so highly of him.
Didn't like his recent digression on how to fix Batman then I take it?
I can get swearing-angry-geek videos from loads of places. Thoughtful, well informed geek-commentary is much harder to come by. I understand that the lurid stuff gets the views (especially the DC and Pixels stuff), but it's intelligent stuff like this where Bob really shines (that, and his knowledge of obscure weirdness - looking forward to schlock-tober!)
I completely agree. He seemed quite bitter after his break with the escapist. I watched him because he was erudite and thoughtful. If I just wanted to see people scream swear words, that's what the crazy people by the bus stop is for. I stuck with him and contributed to his patreon because I thought he might get back to form, and he seems to be getting there gradually.
+PavarottiAardvark Professor Thorgi?
Oh boy, I'm sure the comments will be completely chill and reasonable on this one.
Really good video, Bob. I'd say that another aspect of not involving the artist would be "don't let the artists opinions about their work influence yours".
Like when JK Rowling said that Dumbledore was gay. I'd sure like to believe he was, but the art itself didn't reflect it. If Mark Twain came out of his grave and said that Huck Finn was supposed to be a pro-slavery novel, it wouldn't and shouldn't change my reading of it.
That's just what I think about that other topic, though. Great video!
I would love to see someone try and explain how Huckleberry Finn is pro-slavery.
The Harry Potter books don't *not* reflect Dumbledore being gay. It's like a bit of head cannon that doesn't affect the story in any way.
I wanna see oficial dumbledore orgy retcon!
+Joseph Devine How does Dumbledore being gay affect you enjoyment of the piece? How does it affect any part of reading the books? Why should you care?
What Rowling said is a great thing to analyze by itself. If she had said "Dumbledore is straight", would you be here saying the same thing?
existential. anarchist head cannon that Dumbledore is both gay, but monogamous.
Good on you, Bob. Sometimes knowing who the artist is doesn't really change your reaction, but other times it provides that valuable thing called "context" which is the decorative frame within which the art exists. Other similar context items that exist outside the art itself are things like "is this a sequel or a remake?". That's context that will affect how you experience and understand and appreciate the given piece of art, and if you found out about it afterwards it would necessarily make you re-examine it. Or when DeNiro dials in an underwhelming average performance in a mediocre film, it's worth remembering and pointing out that this isn't just some run of the mill Joe, it's Robert DeNiro giving you a blah performance.
"Movies don't need a GamerGate of it's own."
Don't give the internet ideas, mate :I
The one thing I think this missed is that paying to consume an artist's media is directly supporting the artist, and positively reviewing an artist is encouraging others to support them.
And some artists absolutely do not deserve our support.
Damn, what a great episode. Welcome back Bob.
I think the best summary for this video is "If you are only writing about, say, Sully as a pretext to talk bout Clint Eastwood as a political figure. Well... that's ok too, actually. *It's just maybe not a review*."
Some movie/video games/comic/art in general critics want to go over to other areas where their expertise is limited. Sometimes really really limited. Keeping objectives clear is good to keep some modicum of control and responsibility over your message.
When I first read Frank Miller I enjoyed it but after learning more about him and his ideologies, beliefs etc. My perspective completely changed and I don't enjoy them anymore.
Yea, you kind of think that he's coming from the wrong place
Yeah, The Dark Knight Returns and 300 take on totally different meanings, now.
I am not the one to judge his view but it is just hard to read his work otherwise for me.
Why can't you judge his view?
I don't know. I don't agree with him but I can't say he is definitely, unquestionably wrong I can say "I think" he is wrong but I can't say it like a fact it is just my opinion not a fact.
I've found "separate the art from the artist" to be less of a matter of critique and more of a matter of personal enjoyment. For example, I did not care at all for Michael Jackson as a person; however, I still enjoy plenty of his songs. If someone felt the need to discuss the artist in a critique of an album, fair enough. If you were to constantly address the artist's flaws when simply trying to listen to their music, of course it's going to piss me off, because YOU'RE the asshole in that scenario. There's a line between "addressing flaws in a review" and "not letting someone enjoy a work because you feel the need to be a jerk and kill the mood."
I've had a problem doing this 100%
For example I'll still listen to a good Michael Jackson song with basically no issue, but whenever Cat Scratch Fever comes on I switch it off, despite liking the song. I'm a bit more scattershot on Guns 'N' Roses because of Axl Rose, and I SOMEHOW still watch Tom Cruise despite him being a high up member of that dumb cult of his. It's odd.
MJ is likely one of the most serious examples, because his music is going to live on longer than Beethoven. Plus, the music industry seems to cater to absolute assholes. Even people in Christian rock bands turn out to be drunk assholes. For the sake of simplification, I just think the public shouldn't idolize these musicians, or they're going to be really confused with what to do with their "Dangerous" album.
+kimarous And what about the effect the personal philosophies of the author have on people?
I mean, pop culture helps shape our perceptions and feelings. Can we really ignore who made what? I'm not talking about burning all books from the Imperialist era for their Racist undertones. I'm just saying, remember who wrote that stuff when reading it.
+Malcom Chase - You're missing the point. By all means, have your views on artists... just don't be a jerk and enforce your perception on people just trying to enjoy a work on its own. Just because someone enjoys Bill Cosby's previous works doesn't mean you have to bring up his sexual assault charges every time its on - that kind of thing. People aren't there for your personal philosophy on the author's personal philosophy or past actions. Is it too much to ask that people not mention that Random Task's actor is in jail for torture and murder every time Austin Powers is on?
kimarous No, of course persecuting the guy all the time is being a jerk. But also, we can't just flat out ignore where the piece comes from, you know?
I'm not saying mention it *all* the time. I'm just saying mention it *some* of the time, so we don't forget about it.
Well done Bob. I can't even tell you how glad I am that you've continued to make these sorts of pieces post-escapist.
That also makes sense when you think about it in terms of TV - in particular, TV news. If you considered every bit of news on TV without considering the people who said and wrote that news, they you'd end up poorly misinformed, particularly if you switched from MSNBC to Fox News without adjusting your opinion of each.
And CNN, which tries to make itself seem impartial with great people like Anderson Cooper, but then you get Don Lemon acting like an uncle tom and having rocks thrown at him in Ferguson.
Jon Stewart said it best, news media went from a predator and prey situation with Washington to a shark and remora situation.
Anderson Cooper needs to be on a different network. Period.
Seperating artist from act is the only way I can still enjoy Tom Cruise.
Yeah, Edge of Tomorrow was what I was thinking of at the time.
Bob's review of Edge of Tomorrow where he outlined their genius solution to "the Tom Cruise Problem" is still one of the cleverest things he's done.
And when someone talks about the artist, it's more about how what types of art the artist usually replicates, as what Clint Eastwood makes. Only good to judge as an advancement and timeline of the artist's growth, not a discussion of themes and ideas being conveyed.
I don't really have a problem with people talking about the Authors of stuff. It just confuses me how a lot of the people who will make a fuss out of the director/writer/developer of something being an asshole are also strict Derrida-style 'Death of the Author' deconstructionists who, in every case where the intent of an author could be used to DEFEND a work, will insist that the intentions of the author are irrelevant to proper analysis of the work.
I don't really what you mean, any chance you got an example?
I tend to see Death of the Author applied more in the availability of facts, less in discussion of larger themes the author explores. One can do both. Like, and this is probably subjective, but, for the sake of strictly facts, canonical events, characters, actions, etc, that, I go Death of the Author. If the Author didn't bother to put it in the body of the work, it probably doesn't merit much consideration on the level of discussing the narrative. Now, if you're talking themes, symbolism, etc., then I tend to find considering the author more useful.
Like, just as an example. J.K. Rowling has gone back a dozen times to add tiny tidbits to this character or that. But, for one, for years, we didn't have those details, which means you felt confident enough in the work to let us go without what could be major details. And two, with it being separated from the central body of work, it makes it impossible to assure that every reader had access to that information. Let's say, just as a for instance, someone who has no interest in social media, doesn't really do the internet much at all. They read Harry Potter. They have no idea that Dumbledor is gay, they will never find out that Harry and Hermione eventually wound up falling in love, so on and so forth. Because it wasn't important enough, or considered, for the central body of the narrative. It's less Death of the Author in the classical sense, and more, if you didn't bother to include it in the published work, it's hard to consider it seriously.
Meanwhile, you've got stuff like... idk, A Serbian Film, just for a perfectly fucked up example. If you knew nothing about Serbia, it's history with regard to military, to citizenship, to conquest and rule, one would probably just come to the determination that it's a gorror film for the sake of itself. Buuuuut then to consider the author's position on the film, the metaphors they were trying to deliver, that actually changes - and I feel like this is kind of a big part here - not the narrative, but the message. The story remains monumentally fucked up, but without knowing the context of the film, the symbolism and themes of the film go largely unnoticed.
TL;DR - imo, death of the author is a useful tool mainly for the analysis of narrative, discussion of the author is more useful when analyzing everything else.
death of the author is a concept that the author's perception of a works meaning isn't THE correct, be all end all, objective meaning. Examples of media where this has been particularly polarized are the book Fahrenheit 451 where the author Ray Bradburry swears its about how media like tv the internet and movies are killing both books and our ability to critically think and interact on a verbal and social level, even though the majority of people who read it will say its an anti-authoritariant/anti-fascism text holding up free speech and creative ambitiom. Theres also the case where most people think that fight club is anti capitalist and pro anarchism when the author Chuck Palahniuk says its actually making fun of hard-line anarchists and people who think that blowing up a couple Starbucks and public statues will somehow hurt western style capitalism
That phrase doesn't mean "ignore the artist completely". It means "don't let your opinions of the artist get in the way of your opinion of the art". I could hate one artist's previous work or actions or love another's, but using this phrase means I should keep my bias for or against that person away from my initial thoughts on a new work of theirs just in case that work is an outlier of my bias, so I can criticize or compliment it for what it did, instead of blindly loving or hating it because it had that one actor or director or writer that I love/hate.
He addressed that when he was talking about "punishing a work for its author".
Dagda Mor Ah, gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
The Oscars seemed to have no problem with Woody Allen so I don't see what the problem is with, at the very least, watching Birth of a Nation (which some members have said they won't)...even if Nat Parker seems remarkably non-remorseful for what he (likely) did.
I mean. Could be a race thing.
It's kinda like how we all collectively agree that Chris Brown is the human equivalent of asshole cheese, but a large part of the same collective decided that Johnny Depp being abusive wasn't that big of a deal.
That said, I'm kinda cool letting all three of these things go by without getting my money. Between two abusers and two racists with Mel Gibson pulling double duty, I'm good just skipping what might very well be great movies, cause I don't want them getting my cash.
+Pr0gram McSynth Between two racists and an abuser, I'd rather spend my money this week watching Kubo and Sausage Party instead. And in regards to Sausage Party's controversy regarding the wages of the animators, Rogan, Goldberg, and Vernon were not to blame for any of that. The blame solely lies of Tiernen and his company up in Canada. And with all of the news of how they were treated is up online, the best case scenario is that any future animated adult projects Rogan and Goldberg will either be with either a different studio or the same one with a higher budget now that they proved an R rated animated movie can be profitable.
Miles Bockelman
I mean, for me, going to see a movie isn't a weekly indulgence because lol american wages, but, I'd agree with you. I'd rather see Kubo, partially because... Seth Rogen comedies don't do much for me and also the whole pay of the animators being akin to nothing.
But, yeah. When it comes right down to it, when it comes to paying for movies, particularly on what is considered the more important period of it's release (Because most movies make more during their home release, but the bean counters don't care as much as their theatre releases) the profile of the people working on it DOES affect how I decide to spend my time or money. I don't wanna give money to rapists, abusers, racists, so on and so forth.
I just woke up, so I'm a little run-off-at-the-mouth-y, sorry about that. One last thing, I really do hope animation can open up as a genre. I'm not particularly interested in Sausage Party, per say, but to open it up for other works would be... so good. SO good.
+ Pr0gram McSynth Do you think it's impossible to enjoyu an artistis work, without actually liking or supporting what that artist does in their personal lives? Because I get what you're saying, but you guys do realize that if we actually abide by this view were going to kiss alot of really good art goodbye (or at least not enjoy it as much). I mean we should stop watching anything with Sean Connery in it at a start.
Also how do you know that Clint Eastwood is a 'racist?' I'm not American, and I hate Trump too, but do you really think it's wise to immediately class anyone who disagrees with you on this subject a 'racist?'
Wesker10000
Real quick - I run off at the mouth, I apologize, but I wanted to answer your questions fully. So. Uh. Long post.
Point one - I think it's absolutely possible to enjoy the work of people you don't like, either on a personal level or on an ideological level. But people have the right to decide what they will and won't support. Orson Scott Card is a great example, because when I was a kid, I read Ender's Game and it was a massive influence on me. However, I did not know at the time that he's a massive homophobe who actively supports anti-lgbt initiatives, so as an adult, I chose not to support his movie, and it's why I don't own any of his books. I make a point to make sure that my money does not wind up in the hands of a person who thinks I am abhorrent. And that goes for plenty of people who's work I do or don't like.
And yeah, you're gonna miss out on some stuff, but the thing is, this isn't a zero sum game. One can choose to actively avoid works done by people they find ideologically or behaviorally repulsive and still have enough media to consume for the rest of their natural born lives. You may have to venture out of the mainstream to do it, but it is entirely possible to find a ton of amazing art in every field, even if you do so with a high moral standard that you hold people to.
Point two - I take calling Eastwood racist from a few places. One is absolutely his defense of Donald Trump. I say this because Trump supporters are either virulent bigots or aggressively ignorant. And I don't have any real bones about this, because if you listen to him talk, watch the way he does business or politics going back to the 80s, he is aggressively and unashamedly racist and sexist, and if one supports him, they either are too, or they're uncritical enough to fall for his demagoguery So, basically, on defending Trump, Eastwood is either racist, or he's ignorant, and I'm inclined to believe, given the skill in his writing and direction, that he's not ignorant.
The other thing is looking at his writing, his writing tends to take a very White People Are The Shit, Everyone Else Kinda Sucks bent. Gran Torino is a white savior movie in that an entire community could not resist a group of hooligans, but here comes Clint Eastwood, practically messianic in his approach, who solves the issue. You've got American Sniper, which is two hours of glorifying a man who saw Muslims as vermin needing slaying. When Gran Torino came out, I wasn't a political person, I saw it, and even then, it didn't sit well with me.
Point 2.5 - Do I think it's wise to lump everyone I disagree with on a subject a racist, I mean, it... depends? But also, I'm white. I tend to defer to what people of color say on a subject because, I don't have a first person handle on what does or does not negatively affect communities of color, y'dig? Like... Well, okay, going back to Orson Scott Card. I know how to feel about homophobia and transphobia. Because I'm part of the communities affected by those things. As for Eastwood, he has a history of racist writing, and he actively defends an aggressive racist, so for him specifically? Yeah, I'm 100% comfortable saying he's at least okay with racism, if not is racist himself.
I think it's important to keep the artist's life and history in mind to contextualize a film, but I also think Death of the Author is a great way to analyze art. I believe an artist's work should speak for them and they shouldn't have to explain what their intention was. Art is a two way street, not meant to be absorbed but to be interacted with, so people should be able to get different experiences from the same movie based on the context of their own life regardless of what the author meant for them to feel.
meta narrative doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is what the art tells us about existence. All that does is how existence influenced art instead of how we can learn something from art about existence.
While I know it's a film not many people have seen, I think one of the best recent example of this whole issue of artist versus art is the movie Knock, Knock. I initially watched it having heard that it was about a man being raped by women, and I was curious how they would treat the subject matter. I initially enjoyed the movie, although I was somewhat disappointed that the scene showing the protagonist getting his revenge was cut.
Then I listened to some of the commentary, and was horrified to find that Eli Roth did not consider the movie to be about rape. He considered it to be about a cheater who got his comeuppance, and he consciously chose to remove the revenge scene because he felt that the main character "brought it on himself."
Not going into graphic detail, the only way the events of the film could be considered cheating would be if you assume a lack of physical resistance is tantamount to consent, because Keanu Reeves' character verbally said "no" multiple times.
If Eli Roth had made the exact same film, and the exact same comments, about a woman his career would be over, or at minimum he would be publicly apologizing.
So, do I just view Knock, Knock as a tragic film about a rape victim, or do I take Roth's asshole intentions into account?
Yo Bob, props for having seen Gallipoli. Damn good film that & one that's a bit dear to a lot of us 'Strayans.
I dislike Hillary for her utter lack of respect for her constituents. I couldn't car less that she's a woman. I'm a proud New Yorker and she blatantly lied to every voting New Yorker when she was running for Senator. She certainly doesn't deserve a promotion.
You're full of shit. Everyone in NY Hates trump far more than they do Hillary,and for good reason. Trump is going to lose NY in a landslide.
DrSmokeTrees That's completely untrue and irrelevant. I could hate both but I'm not discussing Trump here. I'm pointing out how Bob is wrong to claim that people who dislike Hillary must be concerned about her gender.
Ofcourse a Liberal would resort to insults and hyperbole instead of intelligent discussion.
+Mr X oh yeah. Conservatives have never done that as well. /sarcasm
Oh, come on, New York has a proud tradition of electing out-of-staters due to fame over substance. Sounds like your real problem is with the rest of your state's electorate.
Bob, you should be a film professor. I know I'd take that course.
I recently recorded a podcast on the Sword of Lancelot, which becomes a lot more interesting when you find out that the Actor, Director and Screen writer who played Lancelot was married to the actress playing Guinevere. A lot of choices in the moving make a lot of sense with the context.
One of the reasons why I think it can be silly to separate the art from the artist is that all to often the art the artist makes is dripping with their own personal politics. How can a critic separate the 2, when the artist themselves doesn't?
Another Great video Bob. The ignorant Clint Eastwood posts were a great touch. I keep forgetting how old he is. With that said I'm really Interested in seeing all these movies now. Especially Hacksaw, and Nate Turner.
I think that the other big thing to mention is holy shit Sam Worthington is still alive
And he's still getting work!
Very difficult subject to tackle, unfortunately we do live in a society that condemns people even if they accidentally liked an artist work without knowing the problems of the artist themselves.
Many young audiences will love Michael Jackson songs or watch someone's old Cosby Show DVD's and laugh, do we then fault them for enjoying ENTERTAINMENT?
I agree with this video but I do still try to separate the art from the artist as much as possible, it's hard and I often fail but if I didn't try then I probably wouldn't have played some of my favourite games, watched some of my favourite films and shows and so on. An example being Bob actually, I struggle to like him, I find him smug and abrasive but he's one of very few movie critics I've consistently watched and agreed with for around 4 or 5 years now, I regular seek out things he recommends because I know I'd likely enjoy it.
"But it's not about separating artist from their art, it's about ethics in movie reviews."
Congrats on the big 100k Bob! I've been a big fan for quit a while, and now that you've reached 100,000 I seriously recommend redoing your channels look. The background is still the youtube default and your icon is ok but it could be better. Hire a graphic designer or commission an artist and it'll seriously do wonders for your channel.
I always thought the art/artist separation was more on the "i really like this thing but i really don't like this person" and that was okay because while the art cannot exist without the artist you never have to agree with some one out of hand and nor are you by liking their art. It's also okay to refuse to consider that art on that same basis.
Also, when people say it's crucial to separate art from the artist, what they mean is that the finished product should stand on its own merits. It is usually necessary to talk about the artist with regards to what elements of that person's creative process made it into the piece, but the expression clarifies that an artist's rape scandal, for example, has nothing to do with the artist's film about two sets of parents attempting to resolve a dispute over their children's fight at school while doing their best to circumnavigate conservative politeness when both sets of parents hate each other. In case you missed it, rape had *nothing* to do with the plot or development of the movie.
Further, an artist may create something directly about some horrible quality he has, and still be able to relate his message in a salient or interesting way, which would detach the reality of that quality as it relates to your opinion of him, because it is no longer about him, although gradients exist here.
I think it's more a matter of one's personal tolerance. For example, I can deal with an artist having a political view I think is awful (I'm a conservative. If I couldn't do this, I'd only have about a dozen movies I can watch LOL). However, I will NEVER spend money on a Woody Allen or Roman Polanski film because their conduct crossed the line into ACTUALLY HARMING PEOPLE and then using their wealth and fame to shield themselves from justice. Knowing what those men did makes me so upset and angry that I cannot get through their films no matter how good people tell me they are.
And, speaking of rapists being denied justice, I find it sadly ironic that Bob condemns Nate Parker for being a rapist and then, in the same breath, proceeds to swoon about how Hillary Clinton (aka the woman who got to where she is by destroying the lives of the women her husband raped) is gonna smash the misogynist patriarchy. Like, Donald Trump is a living shitstorm; but Hillary Clinton is the living embodiment of Rape Culture.
I'm on board with about 75 percent of what you're saying here. I believe in striving for some degree of critical objectivity but I also agree that SOMETIMES you can't separate the artist from the art.
I think you put it best when you said you shouldn't punish the art just because of the artist. That's as far as I'm willing to take it. But I also don't care for a lot of game reviews that deign to criticize a game for the depiction of its characters and themes. Unless, of course, it's a purely narrative experience, like the Telltale games, for example.
Upvoted. As long as you can keep your political views to a minimum, I can keep watching your content without rolling my eyes. Well done. And when you can't help yourself (because you're Moviebob), at least try to curb your zeal for it like you did this tie out.
Glad to know you accept people are 'wired that way'. I disliked Ghostbusters with women from day 1 since women are not very funny, and I relate to male characters more easily. I am happy it finally is acceptable to just be yourself, a big step forward!
Myself, and a lot of other people, won't see Enders Game because of the author. So yeah, separating the artist and art can be difficult and sometimes you have to wonder if you should do it.
What bugs me the most about the phrase "separate the art from the artist" is how God damned often we have to use it. We really shouldn't, but since so damned many people use that shit is has allowed buckets of terrible people to make movies. I mean, look at how many shitty people you mentioned in this video alone there's still TONS more and it's all because of that dumb phrase.
I really wish we wouldn't even use it because we need to let decent people be making the media not these gross people!
You can't separate artist from art and still have art. The artist is the main factor that decides if a work of art will be sold for thousands of dollars in any sort of gallery setting or if it will be sold for ten bucks in a bargain bin at Wal-Mart. Taking the artist out of the equation leaves you with merchandise. Not art.
That's not necessarily true. I think it's a symptom of a culture where people are not encouraged to be art-literate, so they instead rely upon the reputation of the artist. Besides, unlike most digital media, some art is not for sale at any price, so these would not count as merchandise either.
Popo Bawa Yeah, that might be a valid point when talking about "classical" works locked away in museums but most traveling display pieces are either on temporary loan from the artist who wants good examples of their work to be seen by many prospective customers or the owner/owner's estate wants the work seen but not sold.
In this case we are however specifically talking about art produced by a few hundred people over the course of a few years. The only reason movies or video games count as art to begin with is because the credits are always full of artists who worked tirelessly to produce art. Take the contributions and artistic credentials out of those end credits and you are left with a mass market product produced by employees of a corporate entity. As far as movies are concerned, once you take the artists out of the equation you have taken away any comparisons to the Mona Lisa and replaced them comparisons to mass produced wall prints of the latest Disney princess.
Why are the graphics in Movie Bob videos always so...jiggly?
Every time there's some added in text or images they also seem to be moving up and down slightly. What's up with that?
Probably some interlacing if I had to guess.
No, I think when people say 'separate the artist from the art' they mean they shouldn't let everything pertaining to the movie cloud their judgment (as in, the movie can be either good/bad DESPITE the moviemaker's intention or personal life).
Separating the artist from the art is done when your reading of the art happens to oppose the apparent aims of the artist. It's something you lean on when the *intent* of the art fails to live up to the results. When a movie sucks, it's no defense to say the artist tried to make it not suck.
Aside that, it's mostly a matter of academic criticism, not of reviews. Those two things are worlds apart, but somehow people still fail to realize this.
Brilliant video, but what's the problem with the word "problematic"? It's just an ordinary word used to mean the thing it means. Is there some kind of gross overuse / misuse trend that I'm unaware of or something like that? Seemed like an odd little jab. Nevertheless, love the video.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Art's a part of the world and thus involves the world around it, in itself. Also there are things more important than a single example of a piece of art, therefore a single example of a piece of art doesn't get a free pass on the space in which it exists, as though it were more important than everything around it. Case in point; I think (personally, accepting that everyone draws different lines) not supporting Polanski is more important than finding out whether or not he made good movies, so I don't watch them. They could be masterpieces and I don't really give a fuck. There are other filmmakers.
Cool thing about the comparison between those three films in particular too, interesting situation there.
This seems like a part 2 to your Complex Issues video from the Game Overthinker by urging an examining of meaning not present in the art and look at more meaning. I see how both critical styles you talked about, I normally don't care about the mentality of the artist (but then, I'm not a professional critic unfortunately). But then, I didn't see the new Wonderland movie because I was upset with Johnny Depp so maybe you're actually on to something here? You made me think, Bob. Thanks.
The saddest part of that Oscar season was that Silence was denied so many nominations.....
I don't care if the director or the producer is an asshole or if I disagreed with their beliefs. There are thousands of people who work on all of these projects. I bet that if I got to know all of the people who worked on Zootopia I'd find at least 10 people I disagreed with or thought were assholes. Should I view the final product any less because of those people? If I stopped all interactions with all organizations that involved a person I did not like then I better find an island and not let anyone else on because there is always an asshole in every group.
Wow, great video. It's that kind of well thought out critique that made me a huge fan in the first place.
What if theoretically, someone could make a movie of such caliber, while remaining completely anonymous?
How would that affect criticism of it?
Didn't MovieBob have a video called "Tabula Rasa" at one point? Has it been deleted?
As a huge fan of the musical works of Miles Davis, Johnny Cash, Dr. Dre, Varg Vikernes and Beck I have gotten pretty good at not punishing art for the sins of its artists.
Why did a picture of a criminal pop up around 5:35
Lovecraft.
That would matter if his work wasn't crap,
* nods in agreement * may he rest in piece or, not, we will see...or so I think?
yeah that's a hard one to ignore. He was considered racist even for the
time but he also helped shape modern horror. I love his works but i
hate his view of...well anyone that wasn't a well off educated white
man. I'll admit I'm not so worried about buying his works since he's dead and my money isn't supporting his work. But yeah i can't deny i love his writting despite the fact that he was a close minded racist.
Well we can argue that Lovecraft was a total misanthropist. Sure his racist views of other cultures can be sickening, but apart from the narrators of his stories, all the humans are either bland, assholes or idiots. And that perfectly fits the themes of cosmic horror and human insignificance.
So yeah, I'm not giving a pass to Lovecraft for racism, but the fact that he was a full-on misanthropist means at least he is pretty consistent in his beliefs.
Lovecraft art was full of racist remarks
As far as I'm concerned, the core of a review is simply a general judgement of value and quality; and for some reviewers, that's all they are really concerned with. Other reviewers like delving deeper and offer additional analysis about the artist, and/or the sociopolitical circumstances surrounding the art. That approach is perfectly okay, too. Us as viewers/readers/listeners, simply need to find the critics who offer what we are looking for in a review. Some folks like a simple thumbs up or down, while others enjoy a deep dive. Personally, I like critics who can acknowledge the quality of a work in addition to their personal response. For example, if I were to review Pacific Rim I would point out its faults and then go onto to say that it is one of my favorite films of all time. There are as many tastes in art as there are people on the planet, so it's good to have a broad selection of critics with diverse approaches.
Donald Trump is not about patriarchalism, but about being an outsider (demagoge) in a political climate where people are fed up with the stableshiment. Before you ask if I support (which I don't) it really does not matter, for I'm not american.
"The establishment" is such a bullshit term. It's so overused that it's lost all meaning. Yes, there are legitimate criticisms with how our government works *but* if you're going to support a blatantly unqualified, ignorant bigot in response to that, then that just shows that you're angry at "the establishment" but you don't know why and that you're stupid enough to throw out the good along with the bad.
I've always believed the interpretation of art to be a reflection of the interpreter, and not the artist.
you're not wrong but that's not what Bob is saying here ... he's actually saying that you, as an interpreter, interpret a piece of art (partially) with your knowledge about the artist in the back of your head.
A simple explanation would be Van Gogh's self portrait ... if you don't know that he painted himself it would be a completely different experience, however if you do know that he did paint himself and you also know that he cut off his own ear well then you might start to wonder why Van Gogh decided to paint the left side of his face instead of the right side.
~Or maybe that's just your interpretation of what Bob is saying??? lol
Honestly I half-thought I was missing something in what Bob was saying. I don't often agree with his reviews, but this was the first just seemed "off" to me from the start. THX
I find it oddly funny that the ad I got for this video was a Donald Trump campaign ad.
You get those? Yikes. Thank God for being in Canada...
I like to thank Michael Gundlach, creator of AdBlock.
oof..
writerofbaddreams Yup. Fortunately now that I'm no longer viewing on mobile I can have Adblock shut that shit down.
So, ultimately, you are saying that to be a (professional) film critic you also have to be a pop-culture and "celebrity" critic with a detailed knowledge not only of film making and story telling but of the world, culture and personal lives of the actors, directors, writers, et al to be able to effectively discuss a film?
This kind of thing is what makes someone a critic rather than simply a reviewer. I'm adamant that anyone can review a film by giving their opinion but to be a professional film critic takes this type of critical thinking that goes above and beyond personal opinion.
Great discussion.
Should a person separate art and artist? Not if they already have an opinion on said artist. But they should not be obliged to consider that if they haven't already.
As for 'not punishing' a movie...well if feelings about the creator effects your opinion there's no way to get around that. BUT! Unfair criticism is still something to avoid. If someone says 'I cannot support or enjoy this art because I have a problem with the creator' that is totally fair. But if they say 'this art has no merit and is terribly made' even if it is at least well made in a technical sense...well that's too far I think.
Critics just need to be honest about where they stand. Their viewers can weigh that opinion however they see fit.
I'm so disapointed in the Nate Turner thing because I've cut, Micheal Jackson and R-Kelly out of my music library because of their past.
6:56 It's the same thing as with me whenever I watch your videos, Bob. I've heard of you doing dumb things, but I don't hold it against you. I like hearing what you have to say, I find it fascinating, and at points, very wise.
Good stuff, though I kinda disagree. If you can't find much of worth to say of a film besides what it means to the artist, then the film is probably lacking something. Take your own Really That Good series, which rarely mention the actual writers and/or directors and still find loads of interesting things to say.
My problem with always binding the artist to the art is less about "excusing" movies of the crappy people making them and more about limiting interpretations. Viewing it through the lens of the artist that made it is totally legit but it's far from the only way to see a piece of art. I find that art can tell you a lot about the artist... but the artist can't tell you anything about the art.
For me it's impossible to separate artist from art. It's the reason I cringe every time I see a teen in a Bryan Singer movie.
This video made me rethink separating the artist from the art.
What I have trouble with is separating art from history. Unless Birth of a Nation is 'way more honest and sophisticated than I think it will be, the screenplay is going to have to make several dozen back flips to avoid Nat Turner's real story.
His hands are like grenades of diabetes.
lmao
Haha
hes aware hes fat
Isn't the idea of "separating the art from the artist" basically the antithesis of auteur theory?
He touches on the "Oscars so white" controversy without considering that maybe the Academy thought the white men gave better performances. Did Michael Fassbender in Steve Jobs give a better performance than Will Smith in Concussion? Was Idris Elba underrated in comparison to Bryan Cranston in Trumbo? Who knows? The argument of "Oscars so white" didn't add to anything accept focus on a desire to see more racially diverse nominees for the sake of it.
The problem is that talking about the artist often relies on interpretation of work from the critic rather than agreed upon staplemarks of that person's work; a rough and rather skewed concept of 'artist IS the art" discussions arise. I would agree far more with David Bordwell on considering the artists within the art than Bob here.
Two questions have to balanced out: how good is the art and what is the sin of the artist. I still agree with the general point here.
What does moviebob think of Adam wests return to batman?
so what can they do, bob?
should they become gohst writers and directors until critics review their movies and after that do reveal their identities?
Alternative Title: "Why 'The Death Of The Author' Is Bullshit"
why is the video jiggling, it hurts
Why do all of your videos have interlacing/ anti-aliasing problems? It's realy distracting.
It's probably a problem with your export settings.
Hey Bob! I was wondering: Since your reviews are going to show up on "geeks" youtube channel, what are you working on for your own channel? I guess "In BoB we trust" are still going to be a big part, and "Really that good?" too, but I was wondering if there is something more going on that we haven't seen yet. An update of some sort would be awesome! Cheers Bob!
And to clarify: Yes, I know about your blogspot. Been following it since I heard you stopped working at the escapist and made it.
Well, obviously if we're gonna judge art here like grown adults we have to co sider the artist in question and his views. However it becomes a bit trickier when we judge the art of something the artist is accused of, or believed to be.
Michael Jackson and Woody Allen were never solidly found to be pedophiles by a court of law. While that doesn't mean they aren't, it also doesn't mean they ARE. So if you judge the art based on accusation, your judgement can obviously be fucking wrong if the accusation was false.
Also, and specifically about the guy who made The Birth of a Nation: Why is it more controversial than the accused pedophile rapist who directed X-Men Apocalypse? Both were let off. Are you allowed to forget after some time that he might have raped some kids (and also an adult)? Because Orson Scott Card can't make coffee without people bringing up his views, which, as bad as you think they are, have not actively raped a child. And yet no talk of boycott for Singer.
Maybe that's it. Maybe if BoaN's director can just make more works everyone will forget he might have raped somebody.
It's more controversial because of the subject matter of Birth of a Nation. There appears to be a moral hypocrisy in this case - alleged rapist making a "noble hero film" where he casts himself in a Jesus-like role. People don't like that. I don't like that either. Brian Singer never interrupted one of the X-men movies with a scene of himself descending in a cloud of golden light opening his arms and saying "I am here to absolve you of your sins, my children".
I do disagree here, if anything the biggest flaw for me in modern art criticism is its obsession with tying art and artist together. I'm not saying you should ignore comment on artist entirely but the purpose of artwork is often to transcend the personal circumstances of its creators and comments and analyse broader universal human themes. Of the art criticism I have read the type that focuses entirely on the artwork as a psychological outgrowth of its creator is precisely the kind I learn the least from because to me a lot of that is better used in a biography or work on a given artist's ouvre. Reducing Psycho to "hey, heres a movie about a dude that had a thing for blondes" is the most banal, shallow form of criticism there is and furthermore its a great way to never engage with any art by someobody with views that differ from yours. This may be an "agree to disagree" situation as I do often agree with Bob's assessment of movies but I dont think a reading of Mel Gibson's films constantly pointing out "hey this dude is an angry drunk with race and anti-semitism issues" is a great way to engage with the work as a work. That kind of personalizing diminishes almost any work you do it to, even a work without a "problematic" auteur.
I dunno Bob
I'm just not seeing The Big Picture.
Separating an artist from their art, though less as a reviewing thing and more of just seeing it as part of the audience, is still hard. Like yeah, I don't care how much praise Roman Polanski's entire body of filmwork gets, he loses all sympathy for what he did. And reading almost anything written by Frank Miller loses any enjoyment I would get, knowing how insane he is now.
Same for people only famous for appearing nude in Playboy. I can't look at pics of Jenny McCarthy or Pam Anderson, knowing that J's spearheaded the "Vaccines give kids autism!" crusade, and P's a member of PeTA, and is now an opponent of porn.
What's a gamer gate?
Btw, Bob can see the future or something? 1 day after he made this video, Mel Gibsom came out to say some pretty interesting things about Batman v Superman
for me....I can seperate the art from the artist. I dont mind paying someone who did something terrible to someone to see their work if its good enough.
This is really depressing. The best some of us can do is either not watch the movie or whine about the ones making. Public outcry is something even the most narcissistic prick simply can't ignore, being stressed the fuck out by our justifiable moaning.
Exceptional show, Bob, thanks!
Fantastic usage of naked-Martin-in-destroyed-pool screenshot, Bob.
As someone from SF I'm still waiting for someone to make a movie about Jonestown, that is best picture right there
I just read that Ned Beatty plays Leo Ryan in a 1980 TV miniseries called Guyana Tragedy.
So maybe...
ciam ryan
They have. Just not since the 70s and 80s.
There are some more recent documentaries about it as well.
ciam ryan
"Guyana: Crime of the Century" is the only Hollywood movie I know of. There's also the TV movie I mentioned earlier bu good luck finding that.
There's also a short film called "Jonestown" from a few years back.
I was really excited to see Birth of a Nation but I'd feel genuinely awkward about paying money to see it at this point and I really doubt it'll win an Oscar considering how it'd look for the academy to award Nate Parker
But, would Bob be pro #MovieGate? Because he was Anit-GamerGate.
Pretty sure nobody ACTUALLY cares about who directed a movie. As long as the end product is good. There more people with more important jobs working to make the movie great. Have someone point and tell people what to do, it won't be much with bad actors, a set crew, camera guys and all the other vital parts.
I try not to pay attention to the lives of the artists. Every artist in some capacity or another is shitty. They had to be to make it in the industry to get where they are, or their celebrity drove them to do shitty things. Everybody, except Chris Evans. That guy is a saint.
Clint Eastwood still has it as Sully was pretty good to me, better than most films nowadays like Transformers anyone?
I honestly don't see how Sully gets on the oscar stage outside of just Hank's and Eastwood's name power. we know the story fairly well, heck flight basically do a cliff notes version of it. The other two I think are easy to see on stage particularly Hacksaw Ridge given it's unique story compared to traditional WW2 films.
Ridiculous. First, movies are made by literally thousands of people, so to single one out and anchor the whole movie to their persona is unfair. Second, I doubt most people know about the stars they criticise beyond what they read on their wikipedia page. So to claim you can see Mel Gibson's "racism" in his movies only shows you have a superficial understanding of him. Of course, the real reason to bring this crap into a review is for clicks.
Bob you gotta sort out your rendering mate. I don't know what's going on but I can't watch your stuff in fullscreen without all the overlay graphics going wibbly-wobbly.
It's funny that people who are so angry about problematic creators getting referenced were all the fuck over 2016 Ghostbusters for supposed crimes of the cast.
"Chinatown" is one of my favorite movies...despite Roman Polanski having done some horrible things.
So we're just going to assume that a guy accused of rape must be guilty?