Right, I would say that the majority of the films fail in a quality check as they failed to find an audience.
No they have an audience, it just wasn't you. And that has no bearing on the quality of the film. Nor does the size of an audience ever have any direct correlation on a films worth. Do you need someone to list the four million examples that illustrate this for you to grasp that?
So we got 2 abortion films 2 environmental ones, one about the prison industrial complex 3 films covering a spectrum of queer black culture. Which leaves us with facebook, healthcare, and housing.
I'm not surprised my point didn't land on that vacant lot you call an argument.
I didn't claim these films did not have political issues. I claimed that labelling something as political as a reason to suspect its worth doesn't mean ****ing anything. You can do it with any movie you can think of. How about you list some movies you like and I'll point out all of the politics that they include. But I guess you'll excuse those because they likely align with your political point of view.
Basically, once again, you have zero ability to discern anything outside of your own extremely narrow frame of reference.
You talk about gatekeepers alot. But what you're really talking about is you want people you agree with to be the gatekeepers. That share you're biases. Everything else is inherently suspect.
Basically, your exactly as bad as the enemies that you keep imagining.
Half of those films are not classics....good maybe in some peoples eyes. But frankly it's embarrassing to call some of those films top 50 of the last 22 years.
I clearly can't respond to anything here because you didn't actually say anything
Ah yes the good old chestnut. It's okay to be dishonest because it serves some sort of greater good.
No I'm not saying that. You keep throwing around words like dishonest like people are lying about what they like. Exactly how deep into delusion territory do you have to sink to square your terrible points with yourself?
What I am saying is I wonder if you complained this much when it was just a bunch of white dudes getting accolades? And if not, why? What greater good was that "lie" serving?
And once again, your choice of words is telling. Lie? What lie? The one where people say they like something more than something you like and your brain explodes?
Are you wrong in saying people have biases in regards to what films they might prefer? Of course not. Everyone has some levels of bias. We most often will cozy up with those things which reflect back what we believe in. You do it, I do it, we all do it to some degree...so how does this make it a lie? Is it really that difficult to comprehend that people who believe in trans rights will identity more strongly with a film that humanizes trans people? Or those who are religious will identify with The Silence. Or I will identify with Edith Massey eating eggs in a crib in Pink Flamingoes. This isn't rocket science. We don't need to get into conspiracy theories to explain this phenomenon
Now, does a movie agreeing with your beliefs make it a better movie worth canonization? Definitely not. Art still needs to transcend these biases to have any further meaning. But I suspect those voting on this list can likely do that. Or at least I hope they can.
The question though is can you? Because it can't simply be the Freedom boner Braveheart induces. Or whatever crap movie it is that gets your juices flowing because it's so wonderfully not woke. Because unless you can walk it like you talk it in regards to this kind of analysis, you should probably stop talking about all the phony critics and their phony lists. Because your exactly the same
Also your thesis that Asian filmmakers have been excluded until recently is at best hilarious at worst ignorant. Propaganda you agree with is still propaganda. In your brain Kurosawa is some hidden esoteric film maker...and Akira succeeded in spite of it's self and people haven't been pushing Ozu for the last fifty years.
What the **** are you talking about? Where did I say Asian films have been excluded in the past? Or that Kurosawa is some kind of rare find. Don't project your ignorance onto me.
What I'm saying is Asian films became a very visible entity amongst the cinematic zeitgeist of the last twenty years. This doesn't mean Kurosawa or Ozu were irrelevant before that. But Asian films were particularly hip critically and commercially beginning at the start of the 2000s. They were a part of the pop culture, in a way that Ozu never was.
I would have thought that someone who deifies audience turnouts and box office success as much as you do would grasp that one quicker
Well it would be against the rules to insult other posters...even though I know you really want to. My knees always stay stationary...my eyes on the other hand they roll and roll and roll again.
Pointing out your terrible logic will suffice.
I haven't even begun to start arguing.
No shit. And I recommend you don't take up the practice. It will only get much worse, I'm sure.