Tobias,
Sorry it took so long to get back to this, and perhaps I have lost your attention. But let me say a few things.
First of all about the OP it was not his first post here that I went off on his "just" not liking it take on the film. As I noted it was a later post, which I took to mean he gave up, in effect, on defending the observations he included in his OP. So let's assume he did not, or perhaps why he may have given up. Because yo are correct in his last paragraph he refers to resaons why "one" would not, meaning might not, like the film.
He said:
"No matter how interesting the cinematography and sound design, Red Desert does not succeed in conveying its ideas or emotions to a very broad audience. For many viewers it is simply too slow and esoteric. So why are the critics too shy to say if they don't enjoy it? Surely they can't all love it."
There is I think it clear a central problem with this argument, concerning as it does the putative disjunct between critical views and the mass audience. It is obvious to me that in fact there often is such a disjunct, and the RT scores he refers to are an indication that this is such a film where that has occurred.
The problem is why does the OP think the aspects of the film that MIGHT have led to less than universal love by a mass audience should affect the extent to which the critics "love it"? We are talkng about two different things, no? Two different audiences.
The other obvious thing is that assuming for the moment that some percentage of the mass audience finds Red Desert (and of course films "like" it - this being a subject of general applicatoin to a variety of films) too slow and esoteric, the implication is that critics, or some near equivalent percentage of them, also find it slow and esoteric, but are too, I am not sure here, dishonest? to say so.
Of course it should be obvious that an alternative explanation is that critics as a group uniformly did not see it as too slow and esoteric. In not even discussing this the OP is implicitly assuming that some significant percentage of the critics in effect HAD TO see the film the same way he thinks explains why there is the discrepancy on RT ratings with the mass audience.
Instead he reveals his own basic mindset by resorting to the conspiratorial. Now, we need not say there never are conspiracies. But it seems obvious as we look around us at contemporary culture that especially in socially reactionary elements the resort to conspiratorial explanations is much more common.
It goes something like this: I see something I don't like, but not only do not like but do not understand why others do. And rather than leave it at that, I want to attack the legitimacy of those whose views differ with mine. So rather than even consider whether they see something I do not, God forbid because they have better insight, are more intelligent, perhaps better trained to understand "it", there must instead be some insidious reason behind it.
And voila! We see the conspiracy explanation rear its reactionary head. THis is an obvious case of anti-intellectual reaction. The uninformed should not be made to feel uncomfortable for having uninformed views, but instead should attack those with whom they differ as illegitimate, even worse actively engaged in some conspiracy to mislead, to unsettle, those who are likeminded as those levelling hte charge of conspiracy.
The prevalence of this charge to be clear is not limited to being found among hte politically conservative and reactionary. You can find parallels in those in thrall to left wing political correctness as well. But it does seem rather more common among the politically reactionary.
Returning to the critics, I think they simply see more in this film, enough so to not find it too slow. As for esoteric, misuse of that, using it as an identifier of a negative attribute, is in turn revealing of a reactonary perspective, so let's put that aside. Rather we can say that the critics were probably more focused on the thematic than how quickly the narrative unfolded here, to the evident impatience of some.
It really is no more complex than that, conspiracy theories to the contrary.
reply
share
tobias_681
9 years ago
I fully agree with you. But I think the 100% rating only exists because Red Dessert has been reviewed a mere 22 times. There are critics which go alog much more with the mass audience and which would easily give Red Dessert a thumb down. L'Avventura was initially booed at the Cannes film festival however it still won the jury price.
---
You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were and I say Why not?
reply
share
The_TJT
8 years ago
There is I think it clear a central problem with this argument, concerning as it does the putative disjunct between critical views and the mass audience. It is obvious to me that in fact there often is such a disjunct, and the RT scores he refers to are an indication that this is such a film where that has occurred.
This is true, the audiences are different. Still, I think you give too much credit for intelligence of RT critics and perhaps for intelligence of this film as well - its strength lies mostly in visual storytelling... not dialogue, pacing or acting, imo. If general audience is divided on the film then it's likely that sincere critics are as well.
Of course, as already pointed out - a sample of 23 critics is rather small.
reply
share