|
SALT CURES HAM posted:It just sort of rubs me the wrong way that this is laser-focused on the more mildly annoying aspects of racism when, y'know, people are getting loving gunned down in the street just for being poor and not white. Titanic, deck chairs, etc. You're essentially saying "a movie about the everyday racism black people encounter isn't worth making if nobody gets shot." There are countless movies about the quirks and details of everyday life, and I'd guess over half of those are about upper-middle-class white people in New York City or Los Angeles. If there's one about black people with a focus on racism and identity, I think it should be able to safely get by without turning it into Crash.
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
cat doter posted:I dunno man the dude that screamed "You're an embarrassing doorman and garbage man. gently caress you. Kiss my rear end." at steve mcqueen has a point! Armond White sucks, Twelve Years is good, your post is bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
cat doter posted:I dunno man the dude that screamed "You're an embarrassing doorman and garbage man. gently caress you. Kiss my rear end." at steve mcqueen has a point! I highly respect Steven McQueen and have yet to see Mr. White make a single film. While you can argue there are too many movies about slavery out there for some reason I continue to have this sneaky suspicion that out of all the renditions on screen I've seen regarding the issue McQueen captures what can and should be captured in a two hour film better than anyone else has. And I'm quite certain that this is not the last film McQueen will make about racial issue. If there were a way for him to make a film about kids being killed by cops I'm sure it would happen but I bet that would create a lot of backlash from people like Armond White..
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
Armond White is actually a good film critic.England Sucks posted:I highly respect Steven McQueen and have yet to see Mr. White make a single film. Not relevant. quote:While you can argue there are too many movies about slavery out there for some reason I continue to have this sneaky suspicion that out of all the renditions on screen I've seen regarding the issue McQueen captures what can and should be captured in a two hour film better than anyone else has. That's fine and all, but White didn't actually criticize 12 Years a Slave because there are 'too many slavery movies.' He criticized it as part of a continuum of movies that he felt depicted sadistic violence perpetrated against Black Americans with a loose moral agenda that doesn't come through. He said the movie was bad, not that they shouldn't try to make movies about slavery. In the meantime, if anybody actually wants to read the review of Dear White People it's actually fairly positive and really well argued. But, then again, you have to actually read it and not just be an ignoramus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
I don't like White because I feel he rarely ever tries anymore and just half asses out something that will get him some attention most of the time. He did however seem to actually put effort into his writings on Dear White People.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:I don't like White because I feel he rarely ever tries anymore and just half asses out something that will get him some attention most of the time. He did however seem to actually put effort into his writings on Dear White People. A while has past since he was kicked out of the NYFCC and CityArts went bust, and in that time he's taken it down a few notches. I honestly don't think he cares about getting attention. I think he gets attention for his honest opinions. (Seeing videos of and hearing interviews with him, he does seem at least a little crazy.) That being said, he's one of the most prominent Black film critics commenting on a high profile work of Black independent film, and he's actually managing to comment on aspects of it that it seems like a lot of critics treat as incidental - i.e., the intersection of racial identity and sexual orientation. I like White because he takes his role as a critic very seriously as not just a reviewer, but a journalist of culture and film. Even when he doesn't like a movie or isn't being particularly fair to it, he'll always present at least one alternative film that he thinks is good and is often one that I've never heard of. Reading his reviews, if nothing else, gets me to engage with film in a way that most critics just don't bother doing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
England Sucks posted:Are you seriously quoting Armond White as a reviewer we should have some kind of interest in reading? He's one of the best around, so, yeah. England Sucks posted:I highly respect Steven McQueen and have yet to see Mr. White make a single film. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:A while has past since he was kicked out of the NYFCC and CityArts went bust, and in that time he's taken it down a few notches. I honestly don't think he cares about getting attention. I think he gets attention for his honest opinions. (Seeing videos of and hearing interviews with him, he does seem at least a little crazy.) The way White talks about the death of film criticism while holding himself as the only paragon example (last I checked, he pointedly refuses to name other contemporary critics whose work he admires) makes him seem like an egomaniac, especially when pared with his notorious conduct. He's an interesting guy and doesn't deserve the blanket dismissals he gets, but his writing seems awfully self-conscious and intentionally provocative. His writing is extraordinarily alienating for people unfamiliar with his style, which seems like a flaw for a writer who wants to engage in conversation with the American culture: not even the unforgivable marks against Rotten Tomato scores, but just the way he'll nest a really provocative statement about another film in a banal comment on the film he's currently reviewing, as if he were bored at having to write about the latter and really wishes he could write about the former. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:That's fine and all, but White didn't actually criticize 12 Years a Slave because there are 'too many slavery movies.' He criticized it as part of a continuum of movies that he felt depicted sadistic violence perpetrated against Black Americans with a loose moral agenda that doesn't come through. He said the movie was bad, not that they shouldn't try to make movies about slavery. He was wrong, the movie has a very clear point of view, it's just one he doesn't agree with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
weekly font posted:He's one of the best around, so, yeah. You goon sir are a loving retard. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
I've already mentioned I don't really like White but saying he can't call someone a bad filmmaker because he's never made a film is like saying someone can't criticize White because they've never had a review published. It's just nonsense. Also please let's not derail this topic into an argument about Armond White. axelblaze fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Oct 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:not even the unforgivable marks against Rotten Tomato scores The thing is that this is basically the only reason he came to the attention of popular scorn before he was even dismissed, and it in many ways legitimizes his antagonist distance from contemporary attitudes about how films become valued. All the other stuff you list is a perfectly understandable reason to be put off by his criticism, but in general any legitimate criticisms of his rhetorical style tend to get lost in the naked vanity of, "Well, clearly any guy who thinks that Pixar makes sentimental, exploitative crap and that Michael Bay is a satirist must be a contrarian troll. Look! The Tomatoes prove it!" It's not actually incumbent upon White to state for the jury what film critics he admires so that we can pigeonhole and properly contextualize his opinions. His opinions represent the context of his opinions. If people don't like them, they don't have to engage with them. But none of those things have anything to do with the legitimacy of his criticisms or the integrity with which one should be able to post them, especially if they concern a relevant film and if the criticism addresses a perspective that others don't, and well. Personally, I don't mind antagonistic writing because I value a definitive, assertive rhetorical stance that comes from a position of legitimate pride in one's own expertise as a cultural critic, even if I don't agree. I certainly prefer it to milquetoast appeals to mediocrity which condescend to elitist conceptions of 'popular taste.' When White is defending a movie he thinks is populist, it's not because he thinks it's just empty, popcorn fodder for 'the masses' so that we can get back to talking about 'serious movies.' He straight up calls Adam Sandler a modern day Charlie Chaplin and populist genius. It's bonkers and I love it. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:He was wrong, the movie has a very clear point of view, it's just one he doesn't agree with. I totally agree! Furthermore, I think his primary criticism of the film, which is that it's a cynical, anti-spiritual representation of history, is totally off base. I think 12 Years a Slave is actually quite a spiritual movie. But I actually had to read his review and engage with his rhetorical stances to get that. People don't like White, that's okay. They also don't have to comment on his review. The problem is that people pretend like they know so much about something that they actively ignore. I didn't even want to talk about Armond White. I wanted to talk about race in film and Dear White People. If people want to post other good criticisms of the film, positive or negative, they are free to do so. It's not like Armond White is 'He Who Must Not Be Named' destroying the integrity of all film criticism. He's one film critic with one perspective, and in this case it happens to be a cogently argued one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
12YAS is my favorite film of last year, but he does make a good point about victim mentality/victim narratives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:Armond White sucks, Twelve Years is good, your post is bad. that'll learn me for making jokes 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 10:32
|
|
|
Don't stop the sarcasm train just because I didn't get aboard!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
When a joke falls flat sometimes you just gotta bow out gracefully.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
I just saw this movie tonight, and I thought it was fantastic. There were a couple of moments that made me tear up, when Troy tells Lionel he would have had his back if they had gone to the same high school, man, I've been there. I've said pretty much the same thing to friends I've made, and friends have said it to me. All of the main characters are pretty sympathetic, and I felt bad about all the poo poo each of them was going through, but Lionel, man, poor Lionel...I connected with him pretty quickly, just through his downcast body language and the way he quietly reacts to being hazed...
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Saw it last Friday, and I concur that it was a great movie. The acting was pretty great throughout; I thought all the four mains did a great job of presenting characters who are flawed, but also deeply sympathetic as well. It was really interesting to me the the racism presented in this film are technically microaggressions, because most of it seemed pretty drat overt to me (especially just touching somebody's hair... Seriously, who does that, out of turn? It's weird!*), and it got me to thinking about the definition of microaggression and what classifies as that action. Is it a question of intent, or something? *And the answer, according to this Q&A with the director, is "quite a few people, actually." How sad. Come to think of it, though, it seems like hair is a really important part of how a good portion of the characters present their identities- i.e. Lionel's huge afro that is, in his words, "a black hole for white people's fingers," Sam and how she wears her hair, Coco's beautiful straight hair that turns out to be a wig, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:and it got me to thinking about the definition of microaggression and what classifies as that action. Is it a question of intent, or something? Well, yes and no. Microaggression describes a spectrum of actions, words, and attitudes which objectify, exclude, or otherwise marginalize a group of people within a larger community, whether this be because of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Acts of microaggression are distinguished from acts of aggression primarily by their lack of an overt or explicit targeting of said group. Harassment and assault are examples of aggression, and their relative absence often leads a community or society to conclude that there is relatively little bigotry within it: "Nobody is being ganged up on, nobody is calling you a "friend of the family," there are rules and progressive social values in place to prevent the expression of explicitly racist ideologies," etc. Basically, microaggression occurs on the level of the unconscious acceptance of cultural and social norms that one doesn't question as bigoted because one perceives these as normalized and they don't technically directly affect anybody. So, the social segregation that occurs between Black and white students on college campuses - not as a conscious act on the part of either group, but because of a normalized sense of comfort based on their being raised in similarly segregated communities - is an example of microaggression. More specific examples of microaggression include the objectification of Black folks' hair and the perception that it's okay to touch it / ask to touch it, because it's "unique." Really, Black hair is not unique, is one of the most common kinds of hair on the planet, and the reason they perceive it as "special" is because society is still basically segregated and it hasn't been normalized for them. Furthermore, curly, rough hair is not frequently idealized, because the dominant culture is European white. Thus, they internalize the idea of a Black person being something to be looked upon and touched like a "special opportunity," rather than just another person. Microaggression also includes the perception that a person of color's perspective is in some way representative of an entire community. I.e., the "black perspective," the "Asian perspective," the "gay perspective," etc. Again, one engages with the individual not on an intentional, but an implicitly exclusionary basis - they are treated as a unique and secondary class of people, not just a "normal" person. K. Waste fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Oct 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:Come to think of it, though, it seems like hair is a really important part of how a good portion of the characters present their identities- i.e. Lionel's huge afro that is, in his words, "a black hole for white people's fingers," Sam and how she wears her hair, Coco's beautiful straight hair that turns out to be a wig, etc. This reminds me that I have yet to watch Chris Rock's documentary "Good Hair". But yes, hair is an identity thing for a lot of black people, mainly because their natural hair, as mentioned already, is not considered the ideal, and you have to either find an "ethnic" area at the store to maintain it or get other products to make it fit the perceived "ideal." I've never had anyone try to / ask to touch my hair, but that might be because I'm a pretty large dude and might be intimidating. I currently live in a pretty white area of Pennsylvania though, and the number of people that either comment on or just go ahead and touch my kids' hair is kind of shocking to me. It's like some random person just starts rubbing their heads and you have to be like "Hold on there a goddamn minute!" As for other examples of microaggression, though, one that always sticks out to me is how any show that stars black people and or is themed by black culture needs to be some level of "threatening" to be acceptable to white people. You always hear of certain black actors referred to as "non-threatening" and it's weird that people just say that as though there isn't some kind of really hosed up "house friend of the family" connotation to it. raditts fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Oct 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
That is present in this movie too. Two of the characters goal seems to pretty much be to be as non-threatening to white people as possible (with another one just wanting to mostly be ignored).
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
raditts posted:This reminds me that I have yet to watch Chris Rock's documentary "Good Hair". But yes, hair is an identity thing for a lot of black people, mainly because their natural hair, as mentioned already, is not considered the ideal, and you have to either find an "ethnic" area at the store to maintain it or get other products to make it fit the perceived "ideal." Coincidentally I saw Good Hair the other day and while it was fairly good it seemed to be holding back from any strong conclusion. I especially got the feeling that he wanted to be harsher about relaxers but held back to get certain people to participate. There are nods and hints towards it being a bad thing but nothing concrete. It also doesn't go into the cultural issues of why black hair is considered "bad" nearly as much as I'd have liked. It does go into other cultural issues I hadn't considered though. It is, however, a decent documentary that works very well as an intro to the subject. quote:As for other examples of microaggression, though, one that always sticks out to me is how any show that stars black people and or is themed by black culture needs to be some level of "threatening" to be acceptable to white people. You always hear of certain black actors referred to as "non-threatening" and it's weird that people just say that as though there isn't some kind of really hosed up "house friend of the family" connotation to it. Yeah with Wayne Brady being perhaps the biggest example of that. The number of people of colour who agreed with Chapelle's attack was depressing. That said though, appealing to a mainstream audience or "selling out" is a very commonly disliked thing, it is just especially negative in this instance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
raditts posted:I've never had anyone try to / ask to touch my hair, but that might be because I'm a pretty large dude and might be intimidating. I currently live in a pretty white area of Pennsylvania though, and the number of people that either comment on or just go ahead and touch my kids' hair is kind of shocking to me. It's like some random person just starts rubbing their heads and you have to be like "Hold on there a goddamn minute!" I still can't believe that people do this stuff. I can't recall anyone ever doing this nor have I heard any black people I know ever complain about it, not that that means it doesn't happen. Is this really that common? And what in the hell do you do when someone does that? Sorry for the slight off-topicness, but this whole unasked hair touching is so bizarre to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Coincidentally I saw Good Hair the other day and while it was fairly good it seemed to be holding back from any strong conclusion. I especially got the feeling that he wanted to be harsher about relaxers but held back to get certain people to participate. There are nods and hints towards it being a bad thing but nothing concrete. It also doesn't go into the cultural issues of why black hair is considered "bad" nearly as much as I'd have liked. It does go into other cultural issues I hadn't considered though. This is exactly what makes it a pretty lovely documentary. Rock finds himself getting easily lost in tangents that, at worst, come down to criticizing the perceived superficiality and low self-esteem of Black women, and at best attack the absurdity of the industry without taking an ethical stance based on how mutually exploitative it proves to be. He basically learns that, "I love my daughters and will do whatever they want to make them happy, and just try to make sure they feel good about themselves," which he didn't actually need to make a documentary to learn, and completely obfuscates actually having to confront the ethics of what people are doing. Has anyone seen Regina Kimbell's My Nappy Roots? She actually sued to get an injunction on Chris Rock and HBO Films distributing Good Hair, having screened the film for Rock in 2007. Quasipox posted:I still can't believe that people do this stuff. I can't recall anyone ever doing this nor have I heard any black people I know ever complain about it, not that that means it doesn't happen. Is this really that common? And what in the hell do you do when someone does that? It's interesting how the bafflement that a lot of people feel seems similar to the issue of street harassment. I don't know anyone who voted for Richard Nixon, and all that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:This is exactly what makes it a pretty lovely documentary. Rock finds himself getting easily lost in tangents that, at worst, come down to criticizing the perceived superficiality and low self-esteem of Black women, and at best attack the absurdity of the industry without taking an ethical stance based on how mutually exploitative it proves to be. He basically learns that, "I love my daughters and will do whatever they want to make them happy, and just try to make sure they feel good about themselves," which he didn't actually need to make a documentary to learn, and completely obfuscates actually having to confront the ethics of what people are doing. Yeah, that's a good point, perhaps I am being too charitable. As a White person with Black family I'm kind of torn on this issue, on the one hand I'm aware how ignorant I was about Black hair before I had Black relatives so I can see this as a useful introduction to the subject but on the other he does hold back on real criticism and the end is just a cop out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Quasipox posted:I still can't believe that people do this stuff. I can't recall anyone ever doing this nor have I heard any black people I know ever complain about it, not that that means it doesn't happen. Is this really that common? And what in the hell do you do when someone does that? You can either say yes and go ahead and let them do it or you can say no and then have the white person get all pissy because you didn't let them touch your hair as if it is their right for them to touch it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
While all the white folks are debating about how offensive this movie is, I'm wondering if it'll entertain me or piss me off. Its the little things and the hidden things that get me riled up. I'm fine with right wing nazis and douchebag country club republican fraternity types to hate me and throw blackface ghetto parties, but the condescension (never white guilt or pity)from white liberal friends is more infuriating; especially when they feel they can tell me more about my experience than anyone else. And yes, white people would touch my air all the time when I was younger. It wasn't a typical fro because of my creole background, which made it more "exotic". I didn't think it was any more exotic than a jew fro or puerto rican hair, but this is Texas we're talking about. Even tho Louisiana is right next door with lots of creole blacks with curly and even straight hair, they still treat you like you should be at a loving petting zoo. I'm just wondering if the movie is fun to watch. I like humor, so I am not overly sensitive. I just don't want another School Daze or (especially) Higher Learning. The latter set race relations back as much as American History X.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Higher Learning is an insanely angsty, fraught movie. AHX is the perfect comparison, at least Bamboozled's got jokes in it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Gimmedaroot posted:While all the white folks are debating about how offensive this movie is, I'm wondering if it'll entertain me or piss me off. Its the little things and the hidden things that get me riled up. I'm fine with right wing nazis and douchebag country club republican fraternity types to hate me and throw blackface ghetto parties, but the condescension (never white guilt or pity)from white liberal friends is more infuriating; especially when they feel they can tell me more about my experience than anyone else. The movie doesn't attack its subject matter from an us-versus-them angle. It presents this scenario, but ultimately reveals the major flaws and that races are not factions or should be treated as such. Angry black fighter of oppression is just one character that ends up taking a hard look at herself. You also have the wealthy black student blind to the blatant racism, the attention whore black student who cowtows to the mainstream for money and the shy black student who would like to live in an objective world that does not exist. It is funny, but not big laugh comedy. More of a smart comedy. As a film, it is very well made with great shots and perfect editing. More importantly, these characters feel real, smart and intelligent as they strive for what they want out of life and how they want to be seen. And, no, it doesn't portray all white people as incompetent boobs. There is one white character in particular who winds up being a voice of reason in a very tough situation. Yes, there are some subtly racist white people (some not so subtle), but that's the reality of this situation. The movie ends with images from real blackface themed campus parties over the past four years as a reminder that this form of racism is indeed still real.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Did anyone else think that the ending implied that Sam or Reggie actually posted the description of the party, and did it to show how white people are blind to even the most offensive of offensive poo poo? I kind of got that feeling since they made sure to mention that the facebook account was changed to Sam's password, and that would really water down the impact of the film. It's sort of letting them off the hook a little, implying that they're only being passively racist when, as the credits show, people actually do this poo poo, and they don't need someone to troll them into doing it. And on the subject of hair, I'm kind of torn about Coco's hair being so indicative of her character; intellectually I know it's the easiest shorthand because black hair (particularly black womens' hair) is so politicized, but I'm so done with the 'black women with straight hair are ashamed of being black/wanna be white/are influenced into it by eurocentric society' trope. This is totally a personal thing though as a black woman who likes her hair straight; it's frustrating how hair is so politicized. Besides those two things, I really loved this movie. It's definitely funny and witty, and it's great to see something that focuses on microaggressions and the stereotypes that black people are thrown into. Sam is more complicated than just 'militant black woman', and Troy and his father aren't derided as Uncle Toms (by the film, and later Sam). It's also so fitting that (I don't know if this needs to be spoiler tagged?) Lionel is the one that starts the "riot"; he doesn't connect with the mainstream 'blackness', but in the end, it doesn't matter whether he does or not. Everyone at that party just sees 'BLACK' in the same way; no matter whether you're like Sam, Coco, Troy, Reggie, or Lionel, you're going to face the same bullshit microaggressions and blatant racism because you're seen by default as an other. I also really want a poster for Rebirth Of A Nation because that was loving hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Vertigo Ambrosia posted:Did anyone else think that the ending implied that Sam or Reggie actually posted the description of the party, and did it to show how white people are blind to even the most offensive of offensive poo poo? I kind of got that feeling since they made sure to mention that the facebook account was changed to Sam's password, and that would really water down the impact of the film. It's sort of letting them off the hook a little, implying that they're only being passively racist when, as the credits show, people actually do this poo poo, and they don't need someone to troll them into doing it. I thought it was pretty clear Sam sent out the party invite. It's what she does. She stirs the pot. The movie also makes it pretty clear that it doesn't really change much. As she said, most people would see that invite and just laugh at it or think it was terrible. She didn't cause them all to go out and dress up in black face and act as offensively as possible. That was all them. They were given the idea to do it and instead of rejecting it, they embraced it. The trolling aspect doesn't take away that much. I mean it's still the invite that would have gone out had the guy been forced not to do it. No part of it not going out was because anyone thought the idea was disgusting or wrong but rather because they thought they might get in trouble.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
It's spelled "uff da", OP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Higher Learning is an insanely angsty, fraught movie. AHX is the perfect comparison, at least Bamboozled's got jokes in it. like Wayan's accent, that poo poo is ridiculous!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Does anyone know what make of camera Sam used?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Finally watched the movie. I really liked it! The film's apparently managed to gross over 2 million so that's really nice.  It's kinda impressive how much the movie managed to flesh out four separate protagonists pretty well. And I also like how the ending didn't wrap everything up into a nice and happy bow. But, uh, What did the president do at the end of the movie? Did he really agree to have a 're-enactment' thing on the college campus or whatever? Either way, you should go watch this movie if you haven't already seen it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
kurona_bright posted:But, uh, What did the president do at the end of the movie? Did he really agree to have a 're-enactment' thing on the college campus or whatever? Yes once he found out that money was involved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Saw the movie yesterday and I liked it a lot. It exceeded my expectations; I didn't see many moments of amateurism that others nitpicked about. I guess the setup could have been less "here's what the campus is like." My biggest nitpicky complaint was that the confrontation at the blackface party felt too set piece-ish for a movie trying to be smart and dialogue-driven. (despite being inspired by real racist college parties), and that Lionel's arc felt too much like a conventional "character stops reacting and starts acting" plot. A character like Lionel slowly growing a political spine and "finding" his identity seemed a bit too... optimistic (is that the right word?). I didn't see that journey happen to many people in college; though my experience is different. I'm Asian who lived on a campus with plenty of Asians and my university couldn't be described as largely a "white place". But I'll get to what I think the movie did well: Make me care about student campus drama. Before and during college, I wondered why there weren't more movies or TV shows set on campus that weren't fratboy comedies. After college, I continued to work on campus, but occasionally read some headlines in the campus paper and I often wondered if much of it mattered to anyone out of school. I totally understand why most filmmakers aren't mentally stuck in college anymore. And I believe too many politically-savvy students are too eager to tie their personal experience with a broader political narrative. But with this movie... it managed to work out. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Nov 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Anybody else identify with Lionel during the first half of the movie because he was exactly the kind of goony fucker that you were during college? Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
I thought Sam's romance was handled really poorly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:I thought Sam's romance was handled really poorly. When I first watched it in the theater, this was the thing that stuck out to me really badly and if I were to say anything that turned me off the movie, it was this. I thought her boyfriend Gabe didn't really need to be there or he at least needed an arch. As it stands, he shows up and preaches a bunch of whitesplaining poo poo but the film never really says anything about it and for the most part, simply ignores it. In fact, I thought Coco was a far more interesting character than Sam if simply for the arc that she travels through and she didn't have the baggage that Sam's romance brought to the story.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 02:00
|
|