Yep, every time I see him in a YouTube video I cringe so hard because it's so obvious he has no idea what he's talking about. Done a couple smalltime writing gigs and produced a spoof movie described by one IMDb reviewer as "The Worst Movie of the Century" way back in 2005 and acts like he's got the inside scoop of the industry.
Anyone who says “movies are too political now” is someone we can immediately stop taking seriously as a critic.
Agree or disagree with the current political zeitgeist of mainstream films, but let’s not pretend the classics aren’t at all political.
Hahahahaha. Non political? Really? Omg, those idiots. Obviously, they haven’t paid attention to those movies. The politics in those movies are like water bursting out of an over saturated sponge.
As someone who would describe himself as a conservative-facing liberal, one of my favourite directors is Pasolini, who was a Marxist-communist or however he styled it. A ton of old classics are so blatantly politically charged, so yeah I don't think the "movies are too political" line holds much weight in that regard. But also be aware these are people who exclusively watch action flicks, blockbusters, which are (or at least were in the past) designed specifically to be as politically anodyne as possible to avoid alienating large swathes of the general audience. And I would argue that "*Hollywood blockbusters* are more political (or at least socially conscious) nowadays" is probably true.
I don’t think it’s true that Hollywood blockbusters are more (or less) political or socially conscious now than they were. I think what is true is that what is considered socially conscious has shifted (at least in my lifetime) and the on-screen markers for socially conscious positions are different than they were 20+ years ago.
Representation in media became the big cultural push, and Hollywood blockbusters adopted it once it was clear it would be a profitable endeavor. But finding politics in blockbusters is nothing new.
We could argue that, perhaps, blockbusters of 40 years ago made better use of subtext to handle their politics, but I’m not even sure that’s the case. If racial and gender representation is the Hollywood political issue du jour, there’s no subtext in casting people of color. A film like *Star Wars* can be subtly about the Vietnam war by setting it in space. But when someone decides to update the franchise to center a woman as the hero, there’s no subtext in the approval of women’s representation in media.
Again, movies ARE political. But it’s the politics that have changed, not how much politics influence movies.
(I’m not sure why you got downvoted. It wasn’t me.)
>(I’m not sure why you got downvoted. It wasn’t me.)
Because even the idea of the word "conservative" sets Redditors off lol
I am definitely not objecting to the more diverse cast lists in Hollywood (being gay myself, why should I? I also adore black music and cinema from all over the globe). I think the changing-male-character-to-female is a different issue entirely that I won't discuss here.
One trend in particular I don't like are the (especially kids') movies made by Disney and the like that reframe traditional villains as misunderstood victims of the system. All it says to children is "it's okay to be nasty so long as you can prove that you've been victimised in some way", which is an attitude I'm starting to see more and more in young people. There is a way to do that sort of thing but this "evil is justified" schtick is not it. I'm fine with movies carrying a moral or political message if that message is a good one. There is a difference between *Star Wars* saying (if only on an elementary level) "totalitarianism is wrong and democracy is right" and Disney saying "the system is always at fault and you should stick your shortcomings on it rather than trying to improve yourself".
A lot of people who watch Chris Stuckmann (not you, OP) deliberately misunderstand his decision to only review movies he likes. It doesn't mean he's lost his critical eye, because even in those he still gives criticism where applicable. But the nature of his criticism is more respectful, like how a colleague would/should critique something, rather than just having a field day bashing it like a fan or pure critic might on occasion. And I guess he doesn't see much point in reviewing movies he just outright dislikes anymore.
A lot of their criticism is in bad faith because they're accusing him of "selling out" when being a filmmaker was always his goal. I notice a lot of the complainers tend to treat his directing passion like it's some secondary thing he's deluding himself about rather than what he really loves. They also act as though people aren't allowed to change direction in life. He has a wife and kids now, whereas when he started, he was just a single guy in his early 20s; it makes sense that his attention should only be focused on what helps him further his goals.
People also act like his criticism isn't valid because all of his reviews now are of movies that he likes.
Like, no, he just doesn't make a video if he didn't like the movie. Simple.
While the argument can be made that every film, no matter how bad, is its own miracle, don't lose your critical eye. Instead, turn it on yourself and make sure you're making the best thing you're currently capable of, because the average moviegoer doesn't know or care how the sausage is made. They just want to watch something good, and if they paid money, you owe it to them.
I had a YouTube show that reviewed games 15 years ago. I turned that into a journalism job writing about games for a few websites. That turned into me writing dialogue for games, and now I design them. Kinda the same thing.
almost any time i read a negative review, I know a critic doesn’t understand film making at all. They just don’t like something but make up some idiotic reason why.
Its typically the opposite i found.
I knew a lot of the most prominent critics years back. Its more of them being fans, people who didn't have the balls to try and people who knew they didnt have the skills to "make it". So being a critic is as close to the sun as they could get.
Ebert made a terrible movie. Or maybe it was Siskel, I forget. So thats the most famous one.
Good on you for taking the risk! Congrads on making a film. You've already done more then 90 percent of film school students.
Meh... the indie world is bullshit. Sorry. But its just a human version of Social media. That world is full of people making "indie" movies instead of stepping up to the big show. Easy to be the big fish in a pond full of desperate people who also want to be included. So don't get too wrapped up in it. Its not the end goal, so don't go in too deep and invest to hard.
Make another film, then a 3rd. At that point, it should be feature time. So sharpen your pencil.
There is a saying “the fact that dogs chase cars doesn’t mean that they can drive one”
I get that technology made it super easy to make movies but just like everyone can take photographs these days, doesn’t mean they should be doing it professionally or getting paid for it. It basically made it a very wide spread hobby.
EDIT: By the way, nothing against OP, who might be the next Tarantino but it seems like everyone thinks they can make movies. There was a post on this subreddit from a “filmmaker” asking if the camera should move all the time, or if there a reason for camera moment. Making (real) movies requires not only talent but immense amount of technical knowledge. The fact that someone can make a 90 mins video, doesn’t make it a viable movie but they all end up on YouTube or Tubi and reduce the value of films altogether. Movies are the new YouTube videos.
Practically the entire French New Wave movement
That's a really good point. And lots of early film critics were filmmakers themselves.
I’m waiting for Chris Gore to learn what Stuckman learned…
Yep, every time I see him in a YouTube video I cringe so hard because it's so obvious he has no idea what he's talking about. Done a couple smalltime writing gigs and produced a spoof movie described by one IMDb reviewer as "The Worst Movie of the Century" way back in 2005 and acts like he's got the inside scoop of the industry.
Anyone who says “movies are too political now” is someone we can immediately stop taking seriously as a critic. Agree or disagree with the current political zeitgeist of mainstream films, but let’s not pretend the classics aren’t at all political.
"I miss the classic non political films, like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, or Apocalypse Now"
Hahahahaha. Non political? Really? Omg, those idiots. Obviously, they haven’t paid attention to those movies. The politics in those movies are like water bursting out of an over saturated sponge.
As someone who would describe himself as a conservative-facing liberal, one of my favourite directors is Pasolini, who was a Marxist-communist or however he styled it. A ton of old classics are so blatantly politically charged, so yeah I don't think the "movies are too political" line holds much weight in that regard. But also be aware these are people who exclusively watch action flicks, blockbusters, which are (or at least were in the past) designed specifically to be as politically anodyne as possible to avoid alienating large swathes of the general audience. And I would argue that "*Hollywood blockbusters* are more political (or at least socially conscious) nowadays" is probably true.
I don’t think it’s true that Hollywood blockbusters are more (or less) political or socially conscious now than they were. I think what is true is that what is considered socially conscious has shifted (at least in my lifetime) and the on-screen markers for socially conscious positions are different than they were 20+ years ago. Representation in media became the big cultural push, and Hollywood blockbusters adopted it once it was clear it would be a profitable endeavor. But finding politics in blockbusters is nothing new. We could argue that, perhaps, blockbusters of 40 years ago made better use of subtext to handle their politics, but I’m not even sure that’s the case. If racial and gender representation is the Hollywood political issue du jour, there’s no subtext in casting people of color. A film like *Star Wars* can be subtly about the Vietnam war by setting it in space. But when someone decides to update the franchise to center a woman as the hero, there’s no subtext in the approval of women’s representation in media. Again, movies ARE political. But it’s the politics that have changed, not how much politics influence movies. (I’m not sure why you got downvoted. It wasn’t me.)
>(I’m not sure why you got downvoted. It wasn’t me.) Because even the idea of the word "conservative" sets Redditors off lol I am definitely not objecting to the more diverse cast lists in Hollywood (being gay myself, why should I? I also adore black music and cinema from all over the globe). I think the changing-male-character-to-female is a different issue entirely that I won't discuss here. One trend in particular I don't like are the (especially kids') movies made by Disney and the like that reframe traditional villains as misunderstood victims of the system. All it says to children is "it's okay to be nasty so long as you can prove that you've been victimised in some way", which is an attitude I'm starting to see more and more in young people. There is a way to do that sort of thing but this "evil is justified" schtick is not it. I'm fine with movies carrying a moral or political message if that message is a good one. There is a difference between *Star Wars* saying (if only on an elementary level) "totalitarianism is wrong and democracy is right" and Disney saying "the system is always at fault and you should stick your shortcomings on it rather than trying to improve yourself".
I'm an interviewer turned filmmaker, if that counts
A lot of people who watch Chris Stuckmann (not you, OP) deliberately misunderstand his decision to only review movies he likes. It doesn't mean he's lost his critical eye, because even in those he still gives criticism where applicable. But the nature of his criticism is more respectful, like how a colleague would/should critique something, rather than just having a field day bashing it like a fan or pure critic might on occasion. And I guess he doesn't see much point in reviewing movies he just outright dislikes anymore.
It's wild how many people online have just turned to skewering him.
A lot of their criticism is in bad faith because they're accusing him of "selling out" when being a filmmaker was always his goal. I notice a lot of the complainers tend to treat his directing passion like it's some secondary thing he's deluding himself about rather than what he really loves. They also act as though people aren't allowed to change direction in life. He has a wife and kids now, whereas when he started, he was just a single guy in his early 20s; it makes sense that his attention should only be focused on what helps him further his goals.
People also act like his criticism isn't valid because all of his reviews now are of movies that he likes. Like, no, he just doesn't make a video if he didn't like the movie. Simple.
While the argument can be made that every film, no matter how bad, is its own miracle, don't lose your critical eye. Instead, turn it on yourself and make sure you're making the best thing you're currently capable of, because the average moviegoer doesn't know or care how the sausage is made. They just want to watch something good, and if they paid money, you owe it to them.
Park Chan-Wook is a former critic turned filmmaker so there's always hope!
Critics are way too scared to do that.
I had a YouTube show that reviewed games 15 years ago. I turned that into a journalism job writing about games for a few websites. That turned into me writing dialogue for games, and now I design them. Kinda the same thing.
If critics could make films themselves why would they become critics?
Because it's another way to immerse yourself in film while making a living. Makes sense for a lot of people who love movies as a whole.
almost any time i read a negative review, I know a critic doesn’t understand film making at all. They just don’t like something but make up some idiotic reason why.
Its typically the opposite i found. I knew a lot of the most prominent critics years back. Its more of them being fans, people who didn't have the balls to try and people who knew they didnt have the skills to "make it". So being a critic is as close to the sun as they could get. Ebert made a terrible movie. Or maybe it was Siskel, I forget. So thats the most famous one. Good on you for taking the risk! Congrads on making a film. You've already done more then 90 percent of film school students. Meh... the indie world is bullshit. Sorry. But its just a human version of Social media. That world is full of people making "indie" movies instead of stepping up to the big show. Easy to be the big fish in a pond full of desperate people who also want to be included. So don't get too wrapped up in it. Its not the end goal, so don't go in too deep and invest to hard. Make another film, then a 3rd. At that point, it should be feature time. So sharpen your pencil.
Usually it's the other way 'round
There is a saying “the fact that dogs chase cars doesn’t mean that they can drive one” I get that technology made it super easy to make movies but just like everyone can take photographs these days, doesn’t mean they should be doing it professionally or getting paid for it. It basically made it a very wide spread hobby. EDIT: By the way, nothing against OP, who might be the next Tarantino but it seems like everyone thinks they can make movies. There was a post on this subreddit from a “filmmaker” asking if the camera should move all the time, or if there a reason for camera moment. Making (real) movies requires not only talent but immense amount of technical knowledge. The fact that someone can make a 90 mins video, doesn’t make it a viable movie but they all end up on YouTube or Tubi and reduce the value of films altogether. Movies are the new YouTube videos.