I’m always picking apart movies and TV shows for subtext, deeper meaning, Jungian archetypes, revelation of social patterns, inner psychology, etc., but it seems like there are two related trends that make the traditional, scholarly approach of a close reading increasingly unpopular:
-
The work is about whatever the author says it is about or could have intended it to mean. Literature can have a multipilicity of meanings, some of them deeply personal to the reader, and many of them unintended. That the fun of thinking about a piece and breaking it down an examining scenes and dialogue and symbolism can all be replaced by doing a search on the author’s Twitter is deeply depressing and completely destroys the role of art–to be an ambiguous sounding board for our souls and unconscious reflection of our society.
-
A work is bad or good depending on the political messages it explicitly and implicitly communicates." and related: I’m more likely to agree with an interpretation if helps me politically. Stories with flawed characters are condemned in this system, because the point of literature isn’t to explore the human condition, but to create propaganda for ideologies, and your role isn’t too seriously examine the text but to create your own propaganda for your side online.
Examples:
-
“300 can’t have a gay subtext because that would mean Zach Snyder was woke!'”
-
“The Matrix is definitively a trans-allegory because The Wachowskis said it was. If you disagree, you are stupid, because they said so.” I love reading the Matrix as a trans-allegory, but it is not ever explicitly mentioned in the text so I chafe at it being definitively, or even obviously, a trans-allegory.
-
Sex and the City is bad because Carrie has an extremely fucked up relationship with Mr. Big (ie, only positive role models are “good”–I’m absolutely OK with people pointing that out, but the problem is building a world where only “safe messages” are propagated and treating all audiences as uncritical 3-year-olds in front YouTube Kids).
The only real pushback against art-by-tweet is against JKR declaring Dumbledore to be gay. But, really, that’s just politics taking precedence, because people don’t want her in the LGBT tent exlcuding trans people.
There also seems to be a knock-on effect in writing rooms, where complexity and ambiguity are being sacrificed for clear moralizing and political point-making.
And as a long-time Star Trek fan, I’m not saying art can’t be explicitly political! Of course it can! But I am saying it is increasingly not allowed to be anything else.
Is this a vibe anyone else is getting? My references are obviously seriously dated, but whenever they come up, I feel like I’m speaking Ancient Greek.
Bonus question: Who has a better story than Bran?
I like verily bitchie. She’s less “this is bad” and more “why did this do that?” or “how does this break down into its good and bad and complicated parts?”
For example, what is going on w Dr Who and Isreal? Why is it like that?
Thanks for the recommend!
I haven’t watched Dr. Who since Tennant, but, damn, that is absolutely crazy!
What the hell are you talking about. This just seems like an incoherent rant than a genuine question or discussion topic.
Are you taking like film/media studies 101 or something?
Criticism is just talking about media, what it means, how it’s constructed, what its been influenced by and influences… all that stuff.
The only real pushback against art-by-tweet is against JKR declaring Dumbledore to be gay.
She also claimed that wizards/witches don’t use toilets (despite them explicitly existing in Hogwarts in the books) and just shit in their pants all the time and magic the poo away. People definitely pushed back on that, though it was mainly through mockery
Sidenote: Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, an episode of Community, was pulled from Netflix after accusation of blackface for a character putting on facepaint to portray a dark elf (but for some reason, the episode where that same character point to the two black characters and says, “You are DIRTY!” was perfectly fine to keep on the air). AD&D was reinstated on the shows run on Peacock in 2024 and I think it’s currently also available on Hulu.
No.
Some media criticism I’ve seen has been as much a critique of the audience as it is of the text. Why do some conservatives like Star Trek? How can the Matrix be used both as a trans allegory and adopted by anti-trans alt-right people?
Other media criticism keeps the author alive, but looks into what made the author and how did media change because of it. How did the death of big budget music videos affect cinema? How does a career built on click bait YouTube videos affect how the author creates larger work?
It feels like you can have larger and more meta analysis because the audience is there for more meta analysis.
I mean more popular criticism of pop media. I know the academic types are still doing their thing,but it seems to be treated with hostility when it’s out in the opwn.
Define “popular”. None of the topics I mentioned came from traditional academic works.
Casual conversation among people who might not have taken critical theory and who do not create media criticism content. Lots of content creators are academic,even if they don’t get paid by a uni.
So you are looking for something atypical but found only where typical things are found?
I guess I’m wondering if it’s my perception that’s the problem; that nothing’s really changed except the people I really talk with… which is probably the case.
It is probably a difference between your perception versus the people you are talking to. This happens is someone is more into something than others.
I’m actually really torn on the Sex and the City point, because, yeah, I think a lot of girls grew up on that show and took them as glamorourized role models when in reality much of their psychology is absolutely toxic. That’s an example of media criticism I’d want to encourage; it’s just sort of the wholesale bookburning of the show that bugs me. Instead of urging people not to watch it, why not urge people to watch it with a critical eye and to talk back to it?
Sex and the City and Eat, Pray, Love are two HUGE red flags. Guys, if you’ve met a girl and she is into either of those things, RUN.
In Sex and the City, Big is the perfect example of how women want to be treated like dirt by unavailable, psychopathic men…while decent men like Aiden are kicked to the curb or friendzoned.
There are lots of good men like Aiden out there…but women would just rather have Big.
So I’m a middle-aged guy watching Sex and the City because the writing, directing, and acting is just fucking AMAZING and I think maybe you need to consider the show on its merits.
I just saw the beginning of the cheating episodes (Season 3, Easy Come Easy Go), and the show is NOT condoning cheaing so much as examining it, how it effects people, and, I’m guessing, it’s aftermath.
Making SatC a red flag for women doesn’t make any more sense than making “Fight Club” a red flag for men. Flawed characters are compelling.
That said, the most criticism I’ve heard of the show from fans is for the movie, where Carrie gets involved with Big again, so I think SatC fans are in the clear on this.
Fight club is a red flag for men, depending how they talk about it.
Sure, but I guess the question is if it’s a common enough problem to rise to the status of “red flag.” Someone can like ANYTHING for the wrong reasons, and I think Fight Club is a pretty damn entertaining movie and you’re probably getting a lot of false negatives red flagging it.
But watch out for lye burns on the back of their hands tho
There are specific reasons that uncritically liking fight club is a red flag though, which not all movies share, for instance, Titanic you can criticise for other reasons.
American Psycho is another one similar to fight club. They can be seen as critisisms for the main character, but plenty of people watch it and think, damn i like that aesthetic, i want to be like that.
So I can defend the red flag association for movies like that.
Yes, I absolutely understand your point, but I think American Psycho is much stronger example because I don’t think it’s hugely popular (?), so your false negatives would go way down. But I haven’t seen it because I am insanely disturbed by everything I’ve seen and read and heard about it. Honestly, this is exactly the context I see it most often brought up–as a red flag for men.
I guess part of my question is if red-flagging SatC is partially just misogyny–like just assuming that women can’t see flawed characters without emulating them. I bring up Fight Club sort of as a way to test if misogyny is the underlying issue or if it’s a general mistrust of the public.
What is SatC?
I think American Psycho has had a resurgence in popularity (and admiration) lately which hasn’t been matched by fight club. If anything in my circles fight club is less talked about.
To me there is a big difference between enjoying fight club as a movie (a common experience) vs. being a fan of that movie (much rarer). My eyebrows go up. I start thinking what did they like so much about the movie? Why is it important to them?
So someone who goes out of their way to tell me that they like American Psycho or Fight Club, especially in this cultural context and with no added explanation, is cause to be curious, and find out if their fandom is alarming or not.
I had an ex who had the entire series on DVD and i endured as many episodes as i could take. Sure, the production is excellent and the acting is great, but the characters are horrible people, and the misandry in the show is overwhelming. If the genders were flipped, that show would have been “cancelled” (and i don’t mean just taken off the air…nobody involved with the show would have ever worked in the industry ever again).
I just found myself feeling so bad for Aiden, and feeling intense hatred for everyone else. That show is a straight-up instruction manual on how to be a one dimensional, superficial, vapid, petty, materialistic, unappreciative human being…and then be celebrated for it.
I guess I don’t see where in the series Carrie is “celebrated” for cheating.
Listening to the writer’s commentary, the show the characters are largely audience inserts, they’re just representative of how some people think and behave, and the more I watch the show, the more abstract is gets because I absolutely don’t see these characters as have anything at all in common to support their friendship.
Interesting that you think misandry in the heart of the show, because I think it’s more about round-about misogyny. The writer is constantly talking about “creampieing” the characters, but personally I think that just makes for a more interesting show.
My complaint about the show is that it’s actually extremely regressive, perfectly appropriate for suburban wine mom’s to think they’re “a bit Samantha” or whatever, but nothing truly transgressive ever happens in the show.
Like, hilariously, almost no episodes pass the Bechdel test despite the four main characters being women in conversation because the ONLY thing they EVER talk about is MEN.
Varying degrees of “into” mght be acceptable. There’s reasons to like the show, but not seeing the problems is deffos a red flag.
I see a lot more Pams looking for their Jims than Carries looking for their Mr Bigs at least.
Eh… It depends. People can enjoy a thing while also recognizing that they wouldn’t want to emulate it. Not always, but it should be handled on a case-by-case basis
I wish I could just show you my youtube feed. I’ve filled it with people who do the exact opposite of those two discussions. Overall culture is still definitely obsessed with finding what’s problematic or winge-ing about death of the author, but there’s really REALLY good conversations about going deeper than that.
Just as somebody who has specifically sought out media for being transgressive. And also wants to both understand the authors intentions while also hearing people subvert them.
Star Trek has been interesting for me because I haven’t seen it since I was a child but Picard was a huge obsession of mine. Now I’ve gotten to rediscover TNG and realized that even though it’s trash and I still really love it. I made some memes about it as I was going a while ago, people in the comments definitely had way better takes than whether it was problematic.
What is the wingeing about the death of the author? I’m wingeing about the revivification of the author lol
And, yes, I’d LOVE to see your youtube feed, too! Throw me some Star Trek commentary, at least I’ve already got Jessie Gender, but have only seen Picard mercilessly shit upon by fans, so I’d be curious if you have some positive commentary that might encourage me to delve into Nu Trek.
My last very good discussion about Trek was ST:NG. I was asking why it was so… heterosexual, and the person I was talking to was saying I did not understand how repressive media was at the time, and I was like, “Yeah, but it’s Star Trek! It’s always trying to be cutting edge!” Turns out that I’m not alone in my disappointment and that a lot of people confirmed there was one particularly show runner explicitly putting the brakes on any gay story lines. (And, yes, that whole Dax thing where she was a man in a past life and his wife is visiting the ship is just, like, ugh, such an obviously convoluted way to have some kind of gay story line that it drew attention to a problem that I, as a straight guy, hadn’t even really noticed at the time).
Lol, yes author necromancy or otherwise finding ways to ignore the history that art work was created in. People do either to try and obfuscate the complexity of a work.
Aside from Angela Colier my Star Trek commentary is sparse, which is why I have to keep asking Lemmy for context on stuff. She’s been posted here a lot though so I’d be surprised if you hadn’t seen her Star Trek takes.
But oh god, I meant Picard the character is dear to me not Picard the show. I can’t find anyone who still recommends anything Netflix-written these days. Streaming service originals are just the place where IP goes to die.
Here’s my favorites for deeper media analysis: Broey Deschanel, Cj the X, Morbid Zoo Not really any Star Trek in there but the talk about the values of interpretation vs. historical context or how different media exists within the economic systems it’s created under
I enjoy a lot of Angela’s science work, but her takedown of Feynman bros is legendary. All I’ve seen of Trek from is her ripping on Wrath of Khan, and it didn´t make a lot of sense to me. And the algorithm stopped handing her over for some reason.
Oh. For a moment I thought maybe Picard might be salvagable and its just been getting a bad rap, but, no, looks like it sucks still. I’m thinking structuring my next Trek watches as character studies, Garak is at the top of the list, but I bet JLP has a lot of interesting development too (wistful flute music plays).
I’ve heard of Broey, but not seen them and not heard of the other two. Thank you for improving my algorithm!
That one was alright. Her video about Dyson Spheres was amazing though and explored that Relics(?) episode of TNG at length. This one about Picard(the show) is really long and kind of painstaking but basically she lines out what all Netflix originals do in their writing and why they’re such shallow creations.
Nah, the painful thing about Picard is that it had such an amazing premise and so much good will you can see the bones of what could have been an amazing show.
No problem! I hope you enjoy!
Relics wasn’t as explored as deeply as I would have liked, but that was fun trip. I forgot how eat-the-rich she is. It’s not one of her more popular videos, but I remember her ragging on the Bezos Astronauts with a lot of, “We see you. We see what you’re doing.”
I’m halfway through the Picard video, and I do have some sympathy for the desire to wreck the utopia in Trek, but I think you have to rebuild it. The reality is I thought I grew up in a Good Country that was constantly trying to improve and be better, be more fair and more just, and now we’re a just a few months away from becoming an authoritarian states and all the indications a genocide is perfectly possible (which might include me), so the utopian vision of Star Trek really does not speak to me in this moment, the way the competent leadership of The West Wing was actively painful for me to watch during the Bush administration.
But Nu Trek and Star Wars also make me wonder if maybe what is happening in the world is also what’s happening in entertainment–that the whole system is so full of nepotism and wealth inequality that writing and directing talent do not necessarily rise to the top, that we have art created not by artists but by corporate apparatchiks and bootlickers.
I think of the Lord of the Rings and all the PASSION that people had for that IP, all the decades of lore and art that built up around it, and how you couldn’t ever have made the Jackson trilogy without it–it is apparent in every stitch. Then I think of all the talent and passion there is for Trek, and wonder, where are those people in the creative process?
Last SF show that really inspired me was The Orville, and that’s a show made possible because a Hollywood bigwig was a legitimate Trek fan.
The Orville is good then? I fell off it first attempt but would be open to a second try.
Yeah I clicked on Angela for science but ended up staying because of her politics black-pills. She’s one of the few people who I would tentatively describe as “calling it what it is” and not just doing the usual stream-of-conscious vomit that phrase tends to merit from most people. Probably has something to do with being in science and not just a selfmade, aesthetical truth-teller.
From what I saw of Picard, the thing that people are calling Nu Trek seems to be the natural result of legacy primetime TV tradition arriving in the internet age. Obviously I love TNG but it was shaped by broadcasting standards and trends like most things of it’s time. Through all the eras it existing in it was morphing to fit the zeitgeist, not really pioneering much (except maybe pretty admirable amount of criticism of apartheid from the highly Jewish workforce it was created by).
If you enjoy the Morbid Zoo LOTR videos I linked, message me back when you see them. She does a lot of Tolkein videos where she’s examining his various monsters and the themes within
So I saw Angela’s Picard video. Good stuff. I wonder what she would make of DS9, which I think is the start of this turn away from the utopic future and Omnibenevolent Star Fleet, but is, you know, not stupid.
I saw Morbid Zoo’s Gollum and I’m glad I did. I keep expecting her to drop into Jungian terminology (shadow being the one I missed most), but she doesn’t, and that’s fine.
I’m one of the shallow-headed redditors who does attack LotR for being a conservative fantasy, even though I have loved it since my mother bought me the Rankin-Bass Hobbit LP. Like, I totally get why fascist racists fucking love it and I don’t understand how people can’t see why! There’s a superior race of people (Aragorn) who deserve to rule by genetic superiority, and other races (orcs) that deserve to be genocided. Come on! I mean, I only get into these arguments because I’m absolutely flabbergasted that people don’t see the problem, not because I think Tolkien was fascist.
But reading LotR as mythology is another richly rewarding exercise, too, and one I plan to do more of as I find my way in life.
Any progress on the Orville?
What happened with you and the Orville? I picked up that it was a love letter to TNG by the third episode. The fourth episode is classic SF banger. Yes, give it a try, unless there’s a solid reason you dislike Macfarlane’s brand of (much muted) humor.
There are things I can expect from internet streaming, like shorter seasons built around story arcs. What I can´t really accept as a consequence of streaming is bad writing that totally misunderstands the characters in the franchise the fans of whom the company is trying to hook into their platform. Though Angela mentions the 8-minute plot-explaining convos in every episode (“do they think we’re stupid?”) and that is a part of streaming philosophy–it’s called “second screen viewing”, that is to say they are expecting the audience to be on their phones and only half-paying attention, so characters have to announce what they will do, describe what they are doing when they are doing it, then talk about what they did after they did it. Yet, you can still have sensical plots and well drawn characters under that system.
I’ll check out Morbid Zoo next.
I sometimes think about never being able to see Guillermo del Toro’s Hobbit, and it makes me sad.