Taken Aback
Yesterday I wrote about why Taken works with an audience. There are lots of mindless action films--I was just noting this one got the formula right.
But others insist on discussing the political side, and in doing so, only demonstrate their own prejudices.
For instance, here's Capone at Ain't It Cool News:
For all of you proud Americans, beware of the not-so-subtle subtext here about American behavior. Kim and her friend are loud, annoying American teens who just want to come to Europe to party and hook up with French guys. Bryan represents the administration under which he served [I assume Bryan served under more than one administration. Also, he was given an award by France for services rendered]. Torture and cold-blooding killing come as naturally to him as brushing his teeth. It seems like a fairly clear-cut undercurrent throughout the film that's easy to push to the side, but impossible to ignore.
Actually, it's easier to make the case the exact opposite is true. The undercurrent of the film is Americans (with Irish accents) know how to get stuff done, whereas Europeans are either too pansy-ass or treacherous to help--unless they're the villains themselves. Also, this film is pro-torture. When you've got a good cause, you can do whatever you want.
Meanwhile, in the more rarefied air at The New Yorker, Anthony Lane, wondering why Neeson would lower himself to such a film, writes:
The movie opened in France almost a year ago; was it wise to delay its release here until the dawn of the new Presidency, when it so clearly belongs to the last one?
First, movies where the hero kicks ass have no serve by date. Second, I thought the Bush era was a time when films were reminding us about the evil America did around the world, so I'd guess the proper films for the Obama era are those reminding us how nasty our enemies can be.
Speaking of pointless swipes at Bush, here's another from The New Yorker's other film critic (it's too great a job for one man), David Denby, discussing the Oscar nominations.
Whatever else it might be, “Benjamin Button” is a celebration of ignorance; it could be a wan kiss goodbye to the Bush era.
Bush is gone. You need another touchstone to prove your intolerance.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:03 AM
4 Comments:
Admittedly film critics talking about politics is like fish writing about bicycles but it is not realistic for any writer on anything in the press to ignore the most unpopular president in at least 60 years.
I'm missing the reasoning here. Even if Bush were a bigger deal than any President in his popularity or unpopularity in the past 60 years (and he's not), that's no reason for critics to drag him him by the heels any time anything political comes up, or, for that matter, any time anything not particularly political comes up.
I always thought that there was a general rule that, as soon as a President left office, we left off with jokes about him and moved on to the next guy. The first time I remember this not being true however, was when Clinton left office. The blowjob jokes continued in force for several years.
That's an interesting point. YOu still see occasional Clinton jokes (whenever he appears in the news somehow). I don't know how long the jokes last these days. But I know the the late night people will keep doing stuff as long as it works. Movie critics should have other things on their minds, like reviewing what's in front of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home