|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jul 28, 2017 18:53:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Jul 28, 2017 18:57:09 GMT
There's just no pleasing these people.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 28, 2017 19:08:21 GMT
I haven't seen the film yet, so I can't speak to specificity in regards to Detroit, but I do think there is something to be said for subject matter and the creative viewpoint. Look at Confederate, the upcoming (at the moment) historical fantasia HBO has with David Benioff and Dan Weiss, set in a timeline where the South won the Civil War. While I am a huge fan of historical fiction and I find a lot of worth in alternate histories (and I have read some fascinating ones with a similar premise over the years, as the Civil War is typically the biggest “what-if” in American history and probably second overall to whether the Nazis won World War II), but alternate history by definition is also *incredibly* tough to pull off, both in terms of believable narrative and acceptability. Especially in this incendiary climate, such a touchy subject *does* have potential in terms of examining how one change in our past could radically shift things in our present, but it would need to be handled with delicacy and tact. So while I will always go to bat for any sort of historical fiction (whether it emphasizes the former or latter word), I also think that the question of “what is the audience for this?” must be asked, and is it the right story you want to tell in this day and age? Benioff and Weiss are white, so they don't have a personal attachment to the societal strife they are depicting, as they wouldn't be victimized by it. It can come off to some as a clinical depiction of events that, had they been overseen creatively by people who actually would be affected by such things in real life, would have that extra layer of emotional resonance that makes it feel, for lack of a better word, honest. (In D&D's case, it doesn't help that the last time they dealt with slavery and oppression, they had this shot. Similarly, imagine if Get Out had been made by a white creator. It wouldn't likely pack that potent edge that comes from it being a personal story. Now, on the subject of Detroit itself, I don't know if I'd say that the film or its depiction of the events in that era should be invalidated because it wasn't made by people of color. I think one should be cognizant of that fact, certainly, and if the film does come off a bit too much at arm's length from the subject (as I've heard some of the mixed reviews state), that might go a long way to explaining it. |
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557 
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Jul 28, 2017 19:47:11 GMT
I don't think that's an accurate representation of the author's argument, to be honest.
She's not saying it's a bad film because it wasn't made by black artists. She's arguing that it feels hollow and unsatisfying because while unflinching in its realism, it never fully contextualizes the violence it portrays, nor does it highlight the effects it has on its black characters or its parallels with the America of today, and she attributes that to the fact that none of the people behind it are direct victims of the racism they're denouncing. She's not attacking the makers, she's saying they couldn't, because of their real life experience (or lack thereof), give the film the depth, scope and incisiveness the subject matter asked for.
Obviously I haven't seen Detroit yet, so I don't know if I'd agree, but I think it's a perfectly valid point. It will no doubt be misrepresented and dismissed as "Bigelow and Boal are white, therefore this film is bad because white = evil", and that comment section will be a train wreck in a few hours, but she has a point. It's not that different from, say, criticizing how some male filmmakers have trouble writing good female characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 28, 2017 22:23:17 GMT
I haven't seen the film yet, so I can't speak to specificity in regards to Detroit, but I do think there is something to be said for subject matter and the creative viewpoint. Look at Confederate, the upcoming (at the moment) historical fantasia HBO has with David Benioff and Dan Weiss, set in a timeline where the South won the Civil War. While I am a huge fan of historical fiction and I find a lot of worth in alternate histories (and I have read some fascinating ones with a similar premise over the years, as the Civil War is typically the biggest “what-if” in American history and probably second overall to whether the Nazis won World War II), but alternate history by definition is also *incredibly* tough to pull off, both in terms of believable narrative and acceptability. Especially in this incendiary climate, such a touchy subject *does* have potential in terms of examining how one change in our past could radically shift things in our present, but it would need to be handled with delicacy and tact. So while I will always go to bat for any sort of historical fiction (whether it emphasizes the former or latter word), I also think that the question of “what is the audience for this?” must be asked, and is it the right story you want to tell in this day and age? Benioff and Weiss are white, so they don't have a personal attachment to the societal strife they are depicting, as they wouldn't be victimized by it. It can come off to some as a clinical depiction of events that, had they been overseen creatively by people who actually would be affected by such things in real life, would have that extra layer of emotional resonance that makes it feel, for lack of a better word, honest. (In D&D's case, it doesn't help that the last time they dealt with slavery and oppression, they had this shot. Similarly, imagine if Get Out had been made by a white creator. It wouldn't likely pack that potent edge that comes from it being a personal story. Now, on the subject of Detroit itself, I don't know if I'd say that the film or its depiction of the events in that era should be invalidated because it wasn't made by people of color. I think one should be cognizant of that fact, certainly, and if the film does come off a bit too much at arm's length from the subject (as I've heard some of the mixed reviews state), that might go a long way to explaining it. Maybe off topic but have you seen Man in The High Castle and do you think theres a decent adaptation there of the book at all. I've seen a few episodes of the first season and I enjoyed them. |
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Jul 29, 2017 0:00:07 GMT
I kinda hate her argument but she is certainly entitled to her opinion . its a double edged sword here too (its a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation) .
If white directors don't occasionally cast black actors in their films, there are always complaints and whining from them (even hints of racism at times)
Granted, I haven't seen Detroit yet (and she has) but judging from a lot of the other reviews I've read, it sounds like Bigelow knocked it out of the park. Can't wait to see this.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jul 30, 2017 19:26:28 GMT
I don't think her point is necessarily bad, but she does come off as whiny.
|
|
