6 ms·
Maybe the critic is too cerebral for me [mentioning Malick etc], but I think I missed the point.
by wrsh07 11y ago
Maybe the critic is too cerebral for me [mentioning Malick etc], but I think I missed the point.
- PirateDave 11y agoI got the same feeling; I'm not sure what movie the reviewer thought he was going into, but it feels like he was expecting a David Lynch film or something similar, not a simple kid's movie.
- dennisnedry 11y agoThat's the problem with critics, they get paid to analyze things. Sometimes things don't really need to be analyzed, just taken at face value.
- 2muchcoffeeman 11y agoI think understanding when a movie is just for fun is part of a film critics job. In Australia we used to have Margaret and David before they recently retired. They were really good film critics with tastes that covered a large spectrum of movies.
- icebraining 11y agoOn the other hand, there's "Man Getting Hit By Football"[1]. One can find a film too simplistic to be appreciated even if one takes it as "just for fun". As people whose work is very subjective, critics don't lend themselves to be read in an ad-hoc fashion, in my opinion. One should follow their reviews, compare them with the works one has also watched/read, and only then decide which critics are more appropriate for you. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1LWhNpTJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1LWhNpTJU
- anigbrowl 11y agoI think it's especially important to analyze kids' movies because of their significant ideological impact. You cant ell effective kids; stories without dumbing things down. I found it a very interesting analysis.
- icebraining 11y agoYou can't tell effective kids' stories without dumbing things down. Isn't that exactly what he disagrees with, though? I think he's looking for a director that can tell a kids' story, and show the shape of the inner mind, without having to dumb things down. It's a tall order - he says it would require a director of genius - but I think his point is that if a director needs to dumb things down to make a film for kids, (s)he's better off not doing it at all.
- rufus_t 11y agoI believe "You cant ell" was meant to be "You can tell", not "You can't tell", and that you agree with each other.
- icebraining 11y agoOh, I think you're right. Never mind, then :)
- anigbrowl 11y agoYes, I didn't have time to proofread and missed the mistake. Sorry for the confusion!
- icebraining 11y agoI wouldn't say he expected any different; I think he just loathes the fact that these "kid's movies" are, as you called them, simple, or better yet, simplistic. He thinks the movie does a disservice to kids by presenting what is, in his opinion, a distorted and sugar-coated representation of mental life and motivations. Essentially, he thinks that a good movie would pass to viewers what Malick's Tree of Life does about the inner life of children (feelings of wonder, the need to act out for its own sake, the deception ones does for others and even oneself, etc) in a way that would appeal to kids. (By the way, this is just what I understood from the review; I haven't seen Inside Out)
- huu 11y ago"The very notion of what’s appropriate for children looms over any consideration of a movie intended for children." This is the author's justification for why he's critiquing the film. I disagree, personally, because he himself is not a child. I doubt any child would enjoy "The Tree of Life".
- icebraining 11y agoI don't think the author expects children to enjoy The Tree of Life; I think he just believes it's possible (if difficult) to write a film for children without losing its subtlety.
- Jimmy 11y agoBefore I clicked on the comments, I had a suspicion that this article wouldn't resonate with the HN crowd. It's very much an example of "humanities" thinking.
- 2muchcoffeeman 11y agoHonest question, what does that mean?
- GuiA 11y agoCan't speak for 'Jimmy, but here's my interpretation of what he's saying: The HN crowd typically comes from a very analytical, scientific background. This line of thinking is based on deriving ideas and concepts from one another based on first order logic, empirical evidence, and reproducible experiments. This is a great way to build accurate models of the world, and allows us to build cars, satellites, computers, grow food crops efficiently, and a myriad other wonderful things. By contrast, humanities thinking is about accepting that things can be approached and analyzed from multiple angles, using a variety of ideas, frameworks, and concepts that might be at odds with one another but all still give us valuable insights into whatever it is we're studying. This is a great way to approach things like art, human emotions, raising children, and a myriad other wonderful things. Each approach has its place, and being able to use either in daily life is probably a good skill to have. If an algorithm is incorrect, you fix it - trying to argue that an incorrect algorithm holds as much value as a correct one probably isn't going to get you anywhere. On the other hand, there isn't such a thing as a mathematical function to clearly define what love or a beautiful piece of art is - trying to define such a function probably isn't going to get you anywhere. To tie it back within the context of the original post: the vast majority of critics loved the new Pixar movie, and it seems to be a wonderful movie in the cultural context of 2015. But humanities thinking tells us that there is value in taking the movie apart and criticizing it in the way that the article's author is doing. Not because he's reaching an objective, unique, true conclusion - but because there's inherent value in that process, and in taking a stance opposed to the mainstream consensus. It might give one new ways to think about analyzing movies, or put words on some slight discomfort one had while watching the movie even if one enjoyed it, or heighten one's enjoyment of the movie, or any number of other things.
- Jare 11y agoI haven't seen the movie, but what the article says resonated with the vibes I got from the trailers, so... > The wonder of childhood is the opposite of the cozy vision of “Inside Out” That may be a key quote. Kids movies, and Pixar movies (which often are, or used to be, for adults as much as for kids) don't need to contain simplistic world views; they need simple and layered presentation, but the world may be rich, and the characters and situations be driven by nuanced and sophisticated themes under the colourful hood. Toy Story 2, The Incredibles and Frozen, in my opinion, are shining examples.
- GuiA 11y agoMalick is the director for "The Tree of Life", another movie about a child's inner life that the author contrasts "Inside Out" to in the article.