Skip to main content

Standing Tall

I don't necessarily want to be the guy who tries to hang a discount-store T.S. Eliot essay about the Death of Culture on yet another mediocre Hollywood sequel, but there's something a little depressing about all the hype and excitement surrounding "X-Men: First Class," the new Marvel-Fox product that's expected to be among the summer's biggest hits.

[. . .]

Oh, OK, I know why. I'm just playing Socratic idiot. It's summertime in spirit if not in fact, and people are covered in beer and bug-juice and have collectively lowered their expectations. They've convinced themselves that they want to see a big, exciting adventure with cool guys and pretty girls and maybe the faintest hint of moral significance but not much resemblance to real life. I suppose a ridiculous yarn about how a group of superhuman genetic mutants in silly costumes intervene to resolve the 1963 Cuban missile crisis (after starting it in the first place) fits the bill, somewhat. But I'm pretty sure that those who are claiming that "X-Men: First Class" is actually good are engaged in the kind of brainwashed magical thinking that goes along with a culture where the entire media and most of the public have to behave like savvy insiders all the time.

[. . .]

It looks good and has some nice acting moments; as a friend of mine used to say about poetry readings, it's better than some TV. If it makes a butt-load of money, all of us parasites on the sweaty underbelly of the film industry are hypothetically better off, so we might as well like it.

[. . .]

While the whole film is professionally executed and goes down smoothly enough, the underlying stupidity of its subject matter can't help but show through in the end. I was left wondering why I'd spent more than two hours in the dark watching a story about how a kid who survived the concentration camps grew up to be an adult who wears an embarrassing faux-Spartan helmet and calls himself Magneto (rhymes with neato). (Andrew O’hehir, ‘"X-Men: First Class": Slick, dumb big-screen candy,’ Salon, 1 June 2011)

I suppose a more charitable way of saying what I said about the collective lowered expectations of summer is that summer movies are meant as a communal escape that's libidinal and visceral and not really subject to intellectual analysis. Believe it or not, I don't want to interfere with anybody's enjoyment along those lines -- but on the other hand, it isn't my job to congratulate Hollywood. (Andrew O’Hehir)

Standing tall

Leave out the part about you not wanting to be the discount store T.S. Eliot essay contributer. Also the part about your bud nudging you on how poetry readings are better than some tv. Also the (actually self-effacing) estimation of yourself as a parasite on the underbelly of the film industry. Also the part in your reply about you knowing that you haven't any influence on box-office returns. You've seen crap; know you can will yourself to speak against a crowd, against true T.S. Eliot types (Ebert's so casual, so American, but this Pulitzer Prize winner qualifies a bit, doesn't he?) when it speaks to Truth; and you know deep-down this all speaks FOR you. Communicate this. "This is crap; and if you mostly like it, something is quite wrong with you. I understand this means I think I'm better than you. I do; I am. Now use what I've given you to start bettering yourself."

Also, in your reply, I don't get how you can argue that you don't want to interfere with anyone's enjoyment along these lines (i.e., libidinal and visceral enjoyment of a film, rather than intellectual), when your whole review suggests that that this is in fact your drive. I think you'd be better again to not be charitable, and EXCLUDE the film entire from ones that do SO satisfy libidinal needs -- something not only more basic or needed/required but more mythic (deeper?) as well -- to put those who'd just make wry cuts on the film on absolute defence: everyone knows they're missing something essential -- Laputans.

I think you saw the film and knew that that if it became popular it would not do to have it excused even by critics as owing to relaxed summer expectations. I think you knew that this meant that something very wrong was happening to people that they actually found satisfaction -- or worse, meaning -- in this kind of shallow offering, and had in mind to be amongst those who'd try and let them know they were going wrong. I like that.

Link: “X-Men: First class” (Salon)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…