Ouch - just 27% on the RT meter right now - Jin ling shi san chai (2011) Discussion

[–] Happy_Warrior 12 years ago

The critics' percentage is 27%, but the general audience percentage is 85%. Is it the audience in China who is wrong, or the critics in America? There is a real disconnect here as the gap between critics and viewers usually isn't that wide.

reply

[–] Westerngal12 12 years ago

I doubt that the audience in China is registering at RT. That 85% is predominantly American, no doubt, and I think the disconnect revolves around the schmaltz factor. Mainstream audiences are known to have a higher tolerance of it than critics.

reply

[–] Happy_Warrior 12 years ago

Mainstream audiences are known to have a higher tolerance of it than critics.

Actually, this isn't "known" at all. Critics have a very high tolerance for sentimentality about subjects they personally relate to. This is why, for example, critics tend to adore movies about opinionated middle-aged schlubs falling in love with beautiful girls/women (Sideways, Lost in Translation).

reply

[–] Westerngal12 12 years ago

Sorry, if you think Sideways and Lost in Translation are egregious examples of schmaltz, then we'll have to part company. Tearful encounters consisting chiefly of lines like ..."Abojiiiiii.....Omaaaaaaa" followed by intense sobbing is schmaltz. My Yiddishe Mama is schmaltz. Not all that is sentimental is also schmaltz. The words are not exact synonyms.

Can we at least agree on that much?

And do you think you might just a wee bit overdefensive when it comes to this movie because you're a "Balehead"?

reply

[–] Happy_Warrior 12 years ago

Why thank you for the lesson on what is schmaltz. I'll make sure to bow down before your obviously superior wisdom from now on.

Trying facing reality, dear. A lot of what critics choose to praise or dispraise is based on personal sentiment and arbitrary bias, what pertains to their own lives and own circumstances, and what they relate to. Critics overrate and underrate movies all the time on that basis.

Is Titanic schmaltz to you? It was very critically acclaimed.

Tearful encounters consisting chiefly of lines like ..."Abojiiiiii.....Omaaaaaaa" followed by intense sobbing is schmaltz.

Okay, all right, it's just possible that, against his normal practice, against a lifelong track record as a distinguished filmmaker, one of China's foremost filmmakers, Zhang Yimou put nothing but dreck in his movie. I could be wrong and he has suddenly morphed into a slavering-at-the-mouth racist Japanese-hater and bottom-of-the-barrel schmaltz-maker.

But it's also just possible, Little Miss Genius, that you are basing your opinions on a smug overconfidence in your own cultural expertise - and an overconfidence in our own cultural commissars - are we going to hold it against, say, Martin Scorsese, now, or Robert Altman or Woody Allen, that American culture also happens to include such dreck as WWF wrestling, trashy daytime talk shows, and sadistic horror movies? Is guilt by association how it works?

The fact of the matter is, there's just as much dreck/schlock/kitsch/schmaltz in North American culture as Asian culture. It simply takes different forms. But that doesn't mean anyone who happens to be an American director is going to wallow in it simply by virtue of being American.

And do you think you might just a wee bit overdefensive when it comes to this movie because you're a "Balehead"?

Yes, it is possible. It's also possible that I'm entitled to expect reviews to be coherent and build cohesive arguments, which most of the pans for this movie did not do, or come even close to doing. Also, I don't think Chris Nolan is that great of a filmmaker, yet most American critics do and The Dark Knight has a near perfect Tomatometer score because of that.

Bale has been in movies that have near perfect scores on RT. However, in my opinion, they don't coincide with what his best movies actually are. While it might be nice for me to believe The Dark Knight is an immortal masterpiece, I don't actually believe that. So I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing what I might want to believe from what I actually do believe.

Zhang Yimou does not have a track record of racist hatred-mongering. He is 60 years old. So either he went senile and bitter in his old age or the reviewers are simply seeing what they want to see.

One of the negative reviews BTW, the one in the NY Times, dismissed the claim repeated in every other review that the movie is anti-Japanese hate-mongering.

reply

[–] Westerngal12 12 years ago

Is Titanic schmaltz to you?

By Western standards, yes, but not particularly by Eastern standards. To the best of my knowledge, there is no salient deprecatory equivalent for schmaltz in Mandarin, Korean or Japanese. For example, the closest you can get in Korean is "too sentimental" (nomu kamsangjok)

Zhang Yimou put nothing but dreck in his movie

Straw man. No critic I read made that argument.

I could be wrong and he has suddenly morphed into a slavering-at-the-mouth racist Japanese-hater and bottom-of-the-barrel schmaltz-maker

Yet another straw man. Why must you hyperbolize so?

an overconfidence in our own cultural commissars

More hyperbole. I did say that culture shapes differences in aesthetic taste and film analysis. All film criticism is subjective, which of course is not the same thing as arguing that one review is as good as another.

The fact of the matter is, there's just as much dreck/schlock/kitsch/schmaltz in North American culture as Asian culture

Wrong. See my first sentence in this post for evidence.

It's also possible that I'm entitled to expect reviews to be coherent and build cohesive arguments

Most of the reviews I've read have cohered well enough, but we must also recognize that critics tend to give shorter shrift to films that don't impress them. That's understandable enough.

Zhang Yimou does not have a track record of racist hatred-mongering

Who said he did? I didn't, and neither did any of the reviews I read.
Link?

One of the negative reviews BTW, the one in the NY Times, dismissed the claim repeated in every other review that the movie is anti-Japanese hate-mongering.

He didn't dismiss it entirely. He said it paled in comparison to Ip Man.

reply

[–] light627 12 years ago

I'm curious. Who are you? Do you really know these three languages well enough to make such a statement?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no salient deprecatory equivalent for schmaltz in Mandarin, Korean or Japanese.

reply

[–] Westerngal12 12 years ago

You don't have to take my word for it. Look up the definitions yourself in any good bilingual dictionary. Moreover, this is not just about the languages in isolation, but the cultures embedded in the languages and vice versa and yes, I'm sufficiently acquainted with the cultures of East Asia to feel confident about my assertions. In Mandarin the translation of schmaltz is analogous to the example I gave in Korean. It's guofen ganshang, guofen for excess and ganshang for feeling or emotion.

(ETA: On another thread you indicated that you're Chinese. In that case you probably realize that kamsang is a cognate of the Chinese ganshang.)

Consider, too, the significant fact that the now thoroughly assimilated "schmaltz" is itself a loanword from the Yiddish for "grease" or "fat." English did already have words like maudlin, mawkish, and cloying but it took schmaltz to make the sentimentality truly gagworthy. I wouldn't be surprised if, in a few more years, we start seeing schmaltz appear as a loanword in East Asian languages as well.

I'm not sure how interested you are in this topic, but if you want to know more, the kawaii/cuteness/kitsch phenomenon has been particularly well studied for Japan. A good example is Sharon Kinsella's chapter entitled Cuties in Japan, included in the edited work Women, Media and Consumption in Japan (Lise Skov and Brian Moeran eds, 1995)

reply

[–] hisredrighthand 12 years ago

I'd like to know what distinctive meaning dreck/schlock/kitsch/schmaltz have in american english. Btw Schlock isn't german at all, and Schmalz is written without a t, at least in german. Might be different in Jiddisch.

reply

[–] florian-riepler 11 years ago

Dreck is a vulgar word and means "crap", *beep*

Schlock = kitsch = cheap, generic and often mass-produced work of art; (Unsubstantial and calculated to have popular appeal - Wiki)

Schmaltz = excessively sentimental.

reply

[–] Happy_Warrior 12 years ago

Straw man. No critic I read made that argument.

You made a sarcastic comment "uhh ga gahhh" noises or some much. I then responded that it doesn't matter how low Asian culture is theoritically capable of sinking, it doesn't matter what the lowest depths of bathos are (which you identified with some specific examples) unless they're actually present in Zhang's work, specifically. Hence, my remark: "I could be wrong and he has suddenly morphed into a slavering-at-the-mouth racist Japanese-hater and bottom-of-the-barrel schmalz-maker." You identified the bottom-of-the-barrel; i then pointed out that this is irrelevant unless that "bottom" is in this movie itself.

Therefore, if anyone is setting up a straw man, it's you (yet again).

More hyperbole. I did say that culture shapes differences in aesthetic
taste and film analysis. All film criticism is subjective, which of course is not the same thing as arguing that one review is as good as another.

And a good critic is supposed to be cognizant of how the culture is shaping him, and be able to rise above it to some extent. It will not do for Todd McCarthy, for example, to regularly praise American schmaltz while going hard on "foreign" schmaltz. Of course, he doesn't recognize his own schmaltz button when it's being pushed, but that's the problem with his reviews.

There's no question, for example, that Bollywood films can be hard to watch, that acting in a Japanese classic like Sansho the Bailiff can look overly melodramatic and artificial. But Sansho is still a great film (not to say this one is). It's the critic's job to think these issues through more clearly than they generally do.

Most of the reviews I've read have cohered well enough, but we must also recognize that critics tend to give shorter shrift to films that don't impress them. That's understandable enough.

No, it's not. If you're going to level such a serious charge against someone, you have to provide much stronger evidence than was provided in these reviews.

Hale's review was fine. It was just a guy who saw a movie he didn't like. But some of the other reviews accuse him of making a racist movie.

Who said he did? I didn't, and neither did any of the reviews I read.

The point is, if a 60-year-old artist with a long history of films behind him has a track record as a basically humanist filmmaker, maybe critics should question whether their accusations of racism really hold water, or if they're reading a degree of malice that isn't there. Again: Hale holds a different view, one that is more plausible given Zhang's lifelong bent, so I find Hale's reading more believable. Just as we wouldn't expect a lifelong anti-Semite and racist like Louis-Ferdinand Celine to suddenly convert to delightfully heartwarming tales of wonderful Jews in his old age, we shouldn't assume Zhang has suddenly turned into a creator of racist smears. There is an insulting amount of writing on Zhang in recent months that portrays him as little more than a brainwashed puppet and subservient lackey of the gov't.

He didn't dismiss it entirely.

But he came extremely close to dismissing it entirely. He came as close as you can come to dismissing it without saying, bluntly, "There's no smoke and no fire."

reply

[–] Westerngal12 12 years ago

But he came extremely close to dismissing it entirely

Let's quote what he said, shall we? "Fears that Mr. Zhang would take a one-dimensional, patriotic approach to the Japanese invasion and occupation of Nanjing (formerly Nanking), while not entirely unfounded, are misplaced. Other recent Chinese films have displayed more sentimental nationalism, jingoism and demonization of the Japanese enemy."

The argument in a nutshell: this is less one-dimensional, jingoistic or demonizing than some other Chinese films.

You made a sarcastic comment "uhh ga gahhh" noises or some much

Sorry, is that English? What part of my post are you citing? Why is it so difficult to quote what I wrote? I'm afraid the rest of your post is quickly deteriorating into gibberish as well.

It. It will not do for Todd McCarthy, for example, to regularly praise American schmaltz while going hard on "foreign" schmaltz

Yet you cited as sterling examples of schmaltz such films as Sideways and Lost in Translation, both of which offer up fully realized characters and artful dialogue.

There's no question, for example, that Bollywood films can be hard to watch

Not hard for many Indians, surely. But even they wouldn't argue that Bollywood is renowned for its subtlety or restraint.

But Sansho is still a great film (not to say this one is). It's the critic's job to think these issues through more clearly than they generally do.

Gee, wonder why Sansho enjoys a 100% rating from Western critics at RT.

But some of the other reviews accuse him of making a racist movie.

Now you're changing your argument. Previously you insisted that Zhang Yimou is being widely accused of having a track record as a racist. Now Western critics are allegedly accusing him of making a racist movie. Pretty soon you may back your way into the truth: It's the demonization of the Japanese which is being derided, not any racism on Zhang's part. As I mentioned in my previous post, contrary to what you alleged, at least one reviewer did note the exception: "But however terrible and real the threat of rape, the clumsy screenplay turns every Japanese soldier into a rampaging maniac, some of them screaming exultantly upon discovering virgins. The exception is commander Hasegawa (Atsuro Watabe), a soft-spoken man who appreciates music."

The point is, if a 60-year-old artist with a long history of films behind him has a track record as a basically humanist filmmaker, maybe critics should question whether their accusations of racism really hold water

So that's really the nub of your argument right there, isn't it?

Shoddy logic on your part even if we set to one side the fact that the film was a Chinese production that had to pass muster with Chinese government censors.

they're reading a degree of malice that isn't there

Maybe not malice, exactly. How do you distinguish between malice and ressentiment?

we shouldn't assume Zhang has suddenly turned into a creator of racist smears.

Again I ask you to quote... not paraphrase, but quote one reviewer who makes that assumption. Even if the film demonizes, we are not justified in assuming that the filmmaker is "racist" against Japanese.

There is an insulting amount of writing on Zhang in recent months that portrays him as little more than a brainwashed puppet and subservient lackey of the gov't.

The passive construction of that sentence is telling. It might mislead others into believing that Western critics are ganging up on Zhang. In fact, his harshest critics are other Chinese.

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/08/zhang-yimou-and-state-aesthetics/

reply

[–] Happy_Warrior 12 years ago

Gee, wonder why Sansho enjoys a 100% rating from Western critics at RT.

Because it's a very old film and acknowledged classic, you dunce. Just as everyone knows the "correct" view to take on Citizen Kane. The point is, a good or even great film of today is not necessarily going to be universally embraced or even widely embraced, and a not-so-great film (and yes, I include something like The Dark Knight in that category) might well be treated as an awe-inspiring masterpiece (check out the Tomatometer for TDK).

Every critic today will call Hitchcock's VERTIGO a masterpiece. But when it first opened, the reviews were mixed to downright hostile. In fact, it was widely considered.... yes.... wait for it.... kitsch.

So that's really the nub of your argument right there, isn't it? Shoddy logic on your part even if we set to one side the fact that the film was a Chinese production that had to pass muster with Chinese government censors.

It's not shoddy logic at all (of course you can't explain why it's shoddy logic, you can only claim it is). The film was a Chinese production, but it was mostly privately financed, and movies have to pass muster with gov't censors, yes, but that's true of films all over the world. Even in America, a movie has to meet countless conditions before it can be greenlighted.

Do you think Zhang is a racist xenophobe or don't you?

Maybe not malice, exactly. How do you distinguish between malice and ressentiment?

A question of ressentiment is fair to explore and consider if it's applied impartially. But if it's just levelled at certain groups of people but not others, then it just becomes intellectual laziness (which is why Nietzsche is the favored philosopher of disgruntled, alienated teenagers). Any question of ressentiment is best explored by writers who have first located and confessed the depths of ressentiment that exist in their own selves.

There is a lofty sense of entitled superiority running through the commentary on this film, and indeed pretty much all Chinese film. The implication seems to be that they're so brainwashed and so conformist but we aren't.

And once again: whose ressentiment are you talking about? Zhang's or the government's? I think you underestimate the director's ability to control and shape his own vision.

The passive construction of that sentence is telling. It might mislead others into believing that Western critics are ganging up on Zhang. In fact, his harshest critics are other Chinese.

Yet more obfuscation. That he has detractors at home doesn't take away from the Western critics. You could have also linked to praise for him by Chinese or other Asian film critics.

Anyone can criticize if they feel like it. But a substantiated argument is different from just throwing out the charge and hoping it will stick.

reply

[–] Westerngal12 12 years ago

Because it's a very old film and acknowledged classic, you dunce

Then you shouldn't have brought it up to shore up your argument, genius. Because it doesn't, you know.

Every critic today will call Hitchcock's VERTIGO a masterpiece. But when it first opened, the reviews were mixed to downright hostile. In fact, it was widely considered.... yes.... wait for it.... kitsch

Well, the Mt. Rushmore scene in N by NW was kitsch, but find me the source for your outlandish assertion that Vertigo was widely dismissed as kitsch. Not that any of this supports the argument you're trying to make. Say, what is your contention, anyway? That Flowers of War will be reassessed as a masterpiece one day? Maybe it will. But you sure haven't made your case for that.

When and where did you see this movie, incidentally?

Even in America, a movie has to meet countless conditions before it can be greenlighted.

Yet there is no production code and no government censors. Can the same be said of China's film industry?

It's not shoddy logic at all (of course you can't explain why it's shoddy logic, you can only claim it is

I would have thought it obvious. You wrote:
"if a 60-year-old artist with a long history of films behind him has a track record as a basically humanist filmmaker, maybe critics should question whether their accusations of racism really hold water"

The problem with this, apart from the unsupported assertion that Western critics are accusing him personally of racism, is the fact that Zhang may simply be doing the government's bidding rather than faithfully following his own artistic and political instincts. Perhaps, careerism and opportunism, not racism or humanism, is at issue here.

Do you think Zhang is a racist xenophobe or don't you?

Irrelevant and no. Now answer MY question. Which Western film critics called him a racist xenophobe?

which is why Nietzsche is the favored philosopher of disgruntled, alienated teenagers

More ill-informed nonsense on your part. Nietzsche was, and is, the favored philosopher of many mature, creative artists and thinkers. And he's hardly the only thinker to have explored ressentiment in depth. Can you name any others, since you seem to be posing as someone knowledgeable on the subject?

Naturally, you still managed to avoid my question. I asked you: How do you distinguish between malice and ressentiment?

And once again: whose ressentiment are you talking about? Zhang's or the government's?

The critics and the journalists are not in a position to judge. But you say that they are reading into the film a degree of malice that isn't there. It's to that remark of yours that I was responding. So which critic used the word malice?

I think you underestimate the director's ability to control and shape his own vision.

I don't underestimate it because I make no claim to knowing how much was under his control. By asserting that I've underestimated it, you're presuming to know something the rest of us don't. How do you come by this inside information?

The implication seems to be that they're so brainwashed and so conformist but we aren't.

Quote to back up this contention?

That he has detractors at home doesn't take away from the Western critics

Makes it less one-sided though, doesn't it? Suddenly, in context, the reservations about Zhang seem less about Western bias than about both Eastern and Western concerns that he may have "sold out." And I'm still waiting for you to identify the Western reviewer in the blogger's piece who called Zhang a racist.

But a substantiated argument is different from just throwing out the charge and hoping it will stick.

Name names.

Which reviewer did that?

reply

[–] TaysChreNN 12 years ago

Have to say that you've been pretty thoroughly dismantled by WesternGal. Quite a fun read.

reply

[–] Happy_Warrior 12 years ago

Have to say that you've been pretty thoroughly dismantled by WesternGal. Quite a fun read.

Um, no, sorry: I haven't been. But I'm sure you'd like to think so. Thanks for playing.

reply

[–] runtheplacered 12 years ago

"Um, no, sorry: I haven't been. But I'm sure you'd like to think so. Thanks for playing. "

Hmm, no. You were ruined in that argument. Sorry.

reply

[–] Happy_Warrior 12 years ago

Hmm, no. You were ruined in that argument. Sorry.

This again? Give me a break.

You think so because you agree with her opinion already, a priori, not because of any particular point she scored. For more evidence of the clarity, or lack thereof, of her thinking, check out her other posts, on the John Wayne board, where she is effectively rebutted in her hasty overgeneralizations (not by me, by other people).

Several critics accused Zhang of racism. Westerngal obfuscated the issue by pretending they didn't, and demanding that I supply proof in the form of exact quotes (even though she could easily have found the proof she was looking for simply by reading the reviews more carefully). Want an example: here you go, from Anthony Kaufman at Indiewire:

it became clear to me that director Zhang Yimou’s new epic about the 1937 Nanking massacre "The Flowers of War" is, well, frankly, propagandistic and, yes, anti-Japanese

I claimed there were reviewers who accused him of racism, she claimed there weren't. That quote confirms my contention, not hers. The reviewer is accusing the director of making a racist movie, therefore, by extension, of being either racist himself, or so cravenly opportunistic and venal as to do anything the gov't wants, to knowingly make a racist movie even if he doesn't believe it himself. I think that's nonsense.

Either he intended to defame and slander Japanese people or he didn't. This may surprise you, but if you read some of the IMDb and various movie forum responses, even people who didn't like the movie don't necessarily agree that the movie is anti-Japanese or merely slanders the Japanese. There were plenty of lukewarm reactions to the movie that still rejected the accusations of Kaufman et al.

The movie is no masterpiece, but it's not a piece of crap either. The Japanese are more fairly treated and honestly depicted than "enemies of Russia" in a movie like ALEXANDER NEVSKY, for example (which is also a good movie despite being constricted by gov't censorship at least as restrictive, if not more so, as what Zhang faces). I notice NEVSKY has strong critical approval on RT, which reinforces my point that critics just go along with the consensus once it forms, that an "acknowledged classic" is great and they don't make demands on it they make on new releases. The simple fact is, NEVSKY is more one-dimensional and unnuanced in its characterizations of "good" Russians and "evil" enemies of Russia, yet few critics seem to notice or care. There is no German character to stand for or symbolize the German capacity of humanity, whereas there is a Japanese character in FoW who stands as a representative of Japanese humanity (not to mention the fact that FoW is on at least somewhat more solid ground historically than NEVSKY). Critics have one standard of morals/aesthetics for the past, and an entirely different standard for the present.

I pointed out to Westerngal that at least one reviewer did not agree with the charges of propaganda, and Westerngal responded like this

Let's quote what he said, shall we? "Fears that Mr. Zhang would take a one-dimensional, patriotic approach to the Japanese invasion and occupation of Nanjing (formerly Nanking), while not entirely unfounded, are misplaced. Other recent Chinese films have displayed more sentimental nationalism, jingoism and demonization of the Japanese enemy."

The argument in a nutshell: this is less one-dimensional, jingoistic or demonizing than some other Chinese films.

But Westerngal's paraphrase of his argument is misleading. "In a nutshell," what he actually says, his words exactly, is that the fears of other critics are "misplaced." He does not merely say what Westerngal implies he says. He uses the word "misplaced." In the context of his whole review, he has problems with the storytelling, but not with jingoism or one-dimensional demonizing.

But since you're such a big fan of Westerngal, why don't you brush up on her incredibly condescending, insulting assertions about Asians' love of kitsch? even when an Asian poster took offense to her wildly overconfident overgeneralizations as to what Asians are like and how they behave, and expressed his/her objections very eloquently, she was no less dismissive and condescending. If you're still impressed, by my guest.

reply

[–] shinji-ikari-1 12 years ago

Give it up, man.
YOU
LOOSE

reply

[–] nhomonko 10 years ago

lmao give it a break you LOST to WesternGal. She had a better arguement than you. Stop being such a sore loser, you come off as an opinionated prick.

reply

[–] Destiny_Cloud_Fist 9 years ago

Here's a good hint for the future: If your opponent can counter your arguments with a single sentence, and you have to talk around that sentence for an entire chapter, maybe your arguments aren't that good. I'm not saying it's a rule, ...just often the case.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kategriffin0 8 years ago

You are both pretentious morons...get a room.

reply

[–] budgethelp 12 years ago

Happy Warrior - You disempower your own arguments when your refer to your opponent with terms like "dear" and "Little Miss Genius" - especially when your arguments are centered around the concepts of bias and language.

reply

[–] Happy_Warrior 12 years ago

Happy Warrior - You disempower your own arguments when your refer to your opponent with terms like "dear" and "Little Miss Genius" - especially when your arguments are centered around the concepts of bias and language.

I don't do anything of the sort. My arguments stand on their own merits. If you don't like it: tough.

reply

[–] NapoleonBender 12 years ago

Ohhh in the lying business are we?

"Trying facing reality, dear. A lot of what critics choose to praise..."

"But it's also just possible, Little Miss Genius, that you are basing your opinions on a smug overconfidence in your own cultural expertise -..."

Also, lol at you for thinking the 85% audience on RT were all Chinese people...

reply

[–] Happy_Warrior 12 years ago

Ohhh in the lying business are we?

Where did I lie? You claimed I disempowered myself. (since you obviously lack the ability to address any of my points directly, you resort to tedious sermonizing instead.)

Also, lol at you for thinking the 85% audience on RT were all Chinese people...

I did not "think" that. However, the accusation was made (not by me) that the only reason for the high score was that Chinese (with a sentimental overattachment to the subject matter) were driving up the score, and this accounted by the disjunct between public and critical reactions.

This is what Sablicious wrote

After all, if there is a heavy Chinese influence on the ratings system at RT, then naturally a film that panders to the Chinese angle on this particular infamous incident will garner more favourable responses

I don't think the "heavy Chinese influence" drove up the score, but some other posters evidently did. I was acknowledging the charge, not saying I agreed with it.

reply

[–] ray-anime 12 years ago

Had quite a fun reading through all of this. 'Happy_Warrior' sure had a tough time, and way too many stupid arguments.

reply

[–] Siamois 12 years ago

"""My arguments stand on their own merits."""

Or rather, lack thereof.

You were totally owned. It happens.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Gonzo_Knight 12 years ago

Sentimentality (and, indeed, humanity) and "schmaltz" is not the same thing.

reply

[–] light627 12 years ago

What's your point? In another post you claimed that Asian are more "schmaltz". It's absurd.

reply

[–] Westerngal12 12 years ago

It's all relative.

In one context I compared schmaltz East and West.

In another, schmaltz tolerance among American critics vs mainstream American audiences.

Two different comparisons.

What's more, if you read my posts carefully, you'll notice that I stress differences of degree over arguing in terms of absolutes.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sturmv 12 years ago

Patriotism and war are topics on which the audience votes on everything but the quality of the movie.
I'm pretty sure on the Nazi Germany movies which seem to come out every month, the jewish viewers vote it up, ignoring how good or bad the actual movie was.
The critics are right as they tend to stay objective. If this movie was just a series of shots of Japanese dying without any storyline, it would still get upvoted by the Chinese viewers.

reply

[–] moneycashgeorge 12 years ago

I have seen the movie and it is not at all "schmaltzy". It is very down to earth and deals strictly with the views of the characters.

Schindler's List is 10x as Schmaltzy as this.

reply

[–] tony-mounthigh 12 years ago

IMO, usually "Critically acclaimed" is short hand for pretentious crap - people like what people like. Some of my favourite movies have been panned by the critics.

reply

[–] Amy1907 12 years ago

another very positive review of the movie, which actually found Bale`s performance to be the weakest acting link. It`s strange how different people react to melodrama, since this one didn`t find the movie melodramatic at all....

http://www.unexpectedideas.net/?p=684

reply

[–] swAppp 12 years ago

it's a little gem, worth more than current 31% !

reply

[–] jakesaccount 12 years ago

Westerngal12, you seem to really dislike this movie, based on the number of negative posts you have done about it; which is strange considering that you haven't seen it, right? Wouldn't it be better if you saw the movie and made your own decision before you participate in arguments about it's value?

reply

[–] NemoNobody87 12 years ago

And yet, a similar schmaltzy, caricatured, melodramatic movie gets nominated for the Golden Globes and has 77% on the same meter. But hey, it's Spielberg right!? He's been doing it for years, so let's give him a pass. I'm talking about War Horse, just in case it wasn't clear enough.

"Battle scenes are spectacular - great explosions! - but most of the screen time is taken up by a contrived and schmaltzy script with little emotional punch." says one of the critics...
Give this man "moah" explosions! "Moah" blood! Michael Bay where are you!?

Blade Runner was ripped apart by critics upon release, but now, almost 30 years later, it is studied in every film school as being one of the most influential film ever made, a masterpiece.

I put no stock on these "critics", bitter old failed filmmakers as they are. Go see the movie if the subject interests you, be your own judge.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]