I'd just like to say, "Oh my God, idiots on IMDB forums, idiots on IMDB forums, oh my God." Reading through the forums on The Producers this morning, while looking for definites regarding allusions and references in the 2005 film, I read so much idiocy that it stunned even me (given my views on the average intelligence of most individuals who post on internet forums in the first place.)
Now, this isn't about whether or not people should like the film. This is not a requirement. If people fail to appreciate the film, then their loss. But the reasons given for disliking it... Listed among such reasons was that Brooks was "unoriginal" because he makes references to other films, including his own. Do people not know the difference between the concept of something being 'referential' or 'pastiche' and the concept of something being 'derivative? How about considering the idea that nothing is created in a vacuum? Or perhaps the fact that every film I have ever seen has been in some way referential to something and most films these days tend to refer to the earlier work of either director, writers or performers? (For example, the number of films Sean Bean has been in that make reference to 'Sharpe'.)
How about the idea that the director didn't know what she was doing because of the simplicity of the camera angles? The heavy influence on the films (meaning the 1968 film and the 2005 remake) of 1930's musicals (including Rogers and Astaire, and the Marx Brothers) apparently has entirely passed the general audience by, thus they seem to have missed the fact that the way she uses the camera deliberately mimics the use of the camera in those early films.
Oh, and apparently the film sucks because the director's commentary is so bad. (I mean, what the fuck?)
On the other hand, the people defending the film were no better. One individual stated that someone who disliked the film "must be British because the British suck at comedy." (Compared to Americans? The mind boggles.) He followed this up with, "American cinema is just better than British cinema. Everyone knows that." *shakes head in sorrow at the stupidity of so many people* Not that I think American film is worse than British. I just think that there are gems everywhere, no matter where the film was made. Just as every nation's film industry produces complete shit. On average, I think America produces more crap. But then, on average, I think we generally see more American films so my viewpoint is probably skewed.
Now, as I said before, I'm not expecting everyone to like it. It is a musical about musicals and if you don't like musicals, you probably aren't gonna like it. If you don't know or haven't seen the things to which it makes reference, then you won't get some of the jokes. (Not that this would necessarily stop you enjoying it, it just means that it'll lack some depth for you.) I'm not expecting everyone to think that the remake is better than the original. (On the other hand, the remake is a musical and the original is not. So different audience and different appeal.) So, people can dislike it, that's fine by me. It just pisses me off when people make sweeping statements about things they clearly don't understand and reach definitive conclusions based on that lack of understanding (thus following faulty reasoning), then being completely unwilling to consider the point of view of others while forcing their own flawed opinion on anyone who happens to be in the same county.
Yes, I know. I don't have to listen and so, from now on, I shall avoid the IMDB forums as I do any other. Take that, film-obsessed imbeciles of the virtual world. ;p
Now, this isn't about whether or not people should like the film. This is not a requirement. If people fail to appreciate the film, then their loss. But the reasons given for disliking it... Listed among such reasons was that Brooks was "unoriginal" because he makes references to other films, including his own. Do people not know the difference between the concept of something being 'referential' or 'pastiche' and the concept of something being 'derivative? How about considering the idea that nothing is created in a vacuum? Or perhaps the fact that every film I have ever seen has been in some way referential to something and most films these days tend to refer to the earlier work of either director, writers or performers? (For example, the number of films Sean Bean has been in that make reference to 'Sharpe'.)
How about the idea that the director didn't know what she was doing because of the simplicity of the camera angles? The heavy influence on the films (meaning the 1968 film and the 2005 remake) of 1930's musicals (including Rogers and Astaire, and the Marx Brothers) apparently has entirely passed the general audience by, thus they seem to have missed the fact that the way she uses the camera deliberately mimics the use of the camera in those early films.
Oh, and apparently the film sucks because the director's commentary is so bad. (I mean, what the fuck?)
On the other hand, the people defending the film were no better. One individual stated that someone who disliked the film "must be British because the British suck at comedy." (Compared to Americans? The mind boggles.) He followed this up with, "American cinema is just better than British cinema. Everyone knows that." *shakes head in sorrow at the stupidity of so many people* Not that I think American film is worse than British. I just think that there are gems everywhere, no matter where the film was made. Just as every nation's film industry produces complete shit. On average, I think America produces more crap. But then, on average, I think we generally see more American films so my viewpoint is probably skewed.
Now, as I said before, I'm not expecting everyone to like it. It is a musical about musicals and if you don't like musicals, you probably aren't gonna like it. If you don't know or haven't seen the things to which it makes reference, then you won't get some of the jokes. (Not that this would necessarily stop you enjoying it, it just means that it'll lack some depth for you.) I'm not expecting everyone to think that the remake is better than the original. (On the other hand, the remake is a musical and the original is not. So different audience and different appeal.) So, people can dislike it, that's fine by me. It just pisses me off when people make sweeping statements about things they clearly don't understand and reach definitive conclusions based on that lack of understanding (thus following faulty reasoning), then being completely unwilling to consider the point of view of others while forcing their own flawed opinion on anyone who happens to be in the same county.
Yes, I know. I don't have to listen and so, from now on, I shall avoid the IMDB forums as I do any other. Take that, film-obsessed imbeciles of the virtual world. ;p
No comments:
Post a Comment