Reviews and Ratings Discussion

Tools    





Have you listened to much of his recent work? To my ear it sounds almost worse than his earlier work. And I don't even think the most recent song I listened to from him had anything "un-PC" that jumped out at me.
As I said, I’m quite sure he no longer does non-PC stuff because he’s been warned he’d be cancelled and because you genuinely cannot do non-PC and be played on the radio right now. This goes back to objectivity/subjectivity, but, well, while I agree his recent work doesn’t come anywhere near his early stuff (it’s like 15 per cent the quality), I also think his use of language and its nooks and crannies and intricacies is unrivalled and that no one among the ‘new’ generation even tries to get there. The new generation is very lazy. To me, he embodies a particular, dying breed of brilliant technical rap, pure planning and dictionary-scouring that no one even bothers with anymore.

Cardi B, Megan Thee Stallion, Lil Nas X and the like don’t try to milk the language for what it’s worth, it’s all ‘my pussy this, my pussy that, girls rock’, they don’t break words into syllables and rhyme the syllables separately or construct two words out of one, they don’t make in-jokes on different parts of different words in verses and he still does. So in terms of reviewing the technical craft of rapping, yes, I think he still deserves a whole lot of credit, more so than the ‘girl power’ gang - and on a personal level, he especially deserves credit for being ironic about it, ironic about the unrealistic standards for veteran artists and ironic about admitting that he will never be as good as he was. That in itself takes self-reflection and guts. (I never in a million years expected us to actually be discussing Eminem in depth so I apologise to everyone who may find it irrelevant and annoying).

I agree with the criticism that he is entirely solipsistic, me-me-me, yes, it’s annoying, but Cardi B is exactly the same level of me-me-me - ‘Cardi bad bitch this, Cardi bad bitch that, Cardi run New York’, how is that any more insightful? What’s the difference?

It’s not like there is much substance to what Cardi B ever said, whereas Eminem always used to deliver pretty good satire and, more recently, self-parody. It’s like what Scorsese is being criticised for with The Irishman, oh, it's too long, well, this is craft, but people just get bored. That’s understandable, but is that reason enough to lower the technical standards?

And why wouldn’t they keep going in the same direction if ‘that’s who they are’, to throw a buzz phase in? Cardi B just gets an unfair advantage because she happens to be in the zeitgeist, but that also makes things ever so much easier for her. She didn’t need to reconstruct the entire genre, she’s just riding the girl power bandwagon.

Most of what I wrote above applies to what I see in the film industry: people don’t take risks that come anywhere near those taken by true pioneers, even Nolan at the time, when he made super-brainy sci-fi that no one could understand. He still does, as Tenet shows, and I think that in itself is laudable. I get a feeling that no one wants to work on the craft at all anymore or even take it into consideration, be it in rap or in filmmaking. Honestly, making Wonder Woman/Captain Marvel is so much easier and less risky than making Tenet. The same applies to the saga of the pulled release of The Hunt. Someone tries to do something remotely risqué and non-PC, and lo and behold, you’re delayed by two years.

So that comes back to your point about reviewers caring about what’s fun (and trendy, I’d add). That’s undeniably true, but to me, that’s quite sad and disconcerting and I’m disappointed that my kids are unlikely to see any kind of respect for technical expertise in any professional medium, be it film, rap or painting. This ‘personal’/‘humanity-driven’ approach breeds mediocrity is what it does. You do know songs are getting shorter (under 3 minutes) because people get paid by streams and you can get more streams in with shorter songs? The hooks also come much earlier into the song as otherwise people won’t bother listening on. I mean, this makes me think of the film Idiocracy. As in, that we’re living in it. So no, I will never, ever accept an argument for the ‘fun’ approach to reviewing anything at the expense of technical expertise and craft. Mr Minio and some others above have also pointed out that there’s an undeniable element of educating oneself when delving into anything and that includes getting to appreciate the technicalities of craft.

There is a difference between a movie that shows an uncomfortable dynamic and a film that people feel may do actual harm to them. It also comes down to individual vs common good. If there is a movie that I watch that makes me fearful about motherhood, that impacts me. If I watch a film in which I am exposed (without context) to portrayals of people of a certain race/sexuality/gender, that has the potential to negatively impact people I come in contact with.
I don’t know. As I said, most of my older family members are Russians. Due to a wide range of factors which we’re all aware of, Russians have been the stereotypical psychopathic villains of the film industry since the beginning of time. They are often obtuse, have a maniacal laugh and idiotic accents. Does any Russian I know care? Nope. But they sure feel proud of how hot Russian women are in movies (and real life!). People need to have a sense of humour is my take on it. And yes, my half-brother was asked about polar bears walking in the streets and all that **** at school. Did he complain that Russians were triggered by the absolute majority of the Hollywood output? No, he went to work in the movies and has been slaving away in the industry for circa 25 years.

I certainly agree with you that the HOW matters, but in my experience (and I continue to keep a close eye on all developments in education), critical thinking is being actively discouraged. If a student ‘formerly known as Joe’ (I’m looking at you, Prince) comes to class and says ‘I’m Jane now’ and everyone calls the person Jane just like that, including the teacher, and there’s no critical discussion about why Joe might be doing this, and then if Jane changes her mind a month later and bam, she’s Joe again, that, to me, is the opposite of critical thinking. Same with banning Spacey from working and supporting victims of Me Too, Time’s Up etc with absolutely no thought given to the obvious benefits these people reap from upsetting the status quo.



Is it common to have exam questions about material that wasn't previously "lessons/book study/projects"?

I'd be pretty triggered as well if an exam started asking me about random books that had never been brought up before in class.
Yes, actually.

All of the reading tests my students take involve text they have never seen before. Because the point isn't to regurgitate analysis I have already given them about a familiar text. The point is for them to apply skills (identifying a theme, supporting a claim, discussing how point of view impacts the story) in a new situation.



As I said, I’m quite sure he no longer does non-PC stuff because he’s been warned he’d be cancelled and because you genuinely cannot do non-PC and be played on the radio right now.
But . . . his old stuff does get played on the radio?

Cardi B, Megan Thee Stallion, Lil Nas X and the like don’t try to milk the language for what it’s worth, it’s all ‘my pussy this, my pussy that, girls rock’, they don’t break words into syllables and rhyme the syllables separately or construct two words out of one, they don’t make in-jokes on different parts of different words in verses and he still does.
That's a technical element of rap. And it's fine if on that basis you still enjoy his music and enjoy it more than the current crop of rappers. But . . .

I agree with the criticism that he is entirely solipsistic, me-me-me, yes, it’s annoying, but Cardi B is exactly the same level of me-me-me - ‘Cardi bad bitch this, Cardi bad bitch that, Cardi run New York’, how is that any more insightful? What’s the difference?
I didn't say she was more insightful, just that she was more fun to listen to. And Cardi B isn't top line for me, generally. I would rather listen to Megan or Missy. But, yeah, I would take any of them over Eminem, because I do not find his style fresh and I do not find his content interesting, so he is 0 for 2.

And why wouldn’t they keep going in the same direction if ‘that’s who they are’, to throw a buzz phase in? Cardi B just gets an unfair advantage because she happens to be in the zeitgeist, but that also makes things ever so much easier for her. She didn’t need to reconstruct the entire genre, she’s just riding the girl power bandwagon.
I don't understand what this has to do with fairness. Eminem got a lot of attention when he first hit the scene because he was white. Was that fair? There were alt-rock stations in my area who played Eminem, and it was because of the novelty of it. Cardi B has the power of personality. She is very shrewd about her collaborations (including not being afraid to partner with people more technically skilled than she is). If she's making the most of the zeitgeist, good for her.

Most of what I wrote above applies to what I see in the film industry: people don’t take risks that come anywhere near those taken by true pioneers
I would argue that at any given time, in any business/medium, most people are not taking risks. I feel like I do see artistic risk in many contemporary filmmakers.

So that comes back to your point about reviewers caring about what’s fun (and trendy, I’d add). That’s undeniably true, but to me, that’s quite sad and disconcerting and I’m disappointed that my kids are unlikely to see any kind of respect for technical expertise in any professional medium, be it film, rap or painting. This ‘personal’/‘humanity-driven’ approach breeds mediocrity is what it does.
But this just goes back to finding "your people." There must be someone, somewhere on the internet reviewing music mainly with an eye to craft. When I want to, I am able to find craft-based reviews on films.

As I said, most of my older family members are Russians. Due to a wide range of factors which we’re all aware of, Russians have been the stereotypical psychopathic villains of the film industry since the beginning of time. They are often obtuse, have a maniacal laugh and idiotic accents.
I'm not sure how this would be an example of risk-taking cinema. Isn't using old stereotypes kind of the opposite of that?

I certainly agree with you that the HOW matters, but in my experience (and I continue to keep a close eye on all developments in education), critical thinking is being actively discouraged. If a student ‘formerly known as Joe’ (I’m looking at you, Prince) comes to class and says ‘I’m Jane now’ and everyone calls the person Jane just like that, including the teacher, and there’s no critical discussion about why Joe might be doing this, and then if Jane changes her mind a month later and bam, she’s Joe again, that, to me, is the opposite of critical thinking.
Having had students who have gone through questioning gender identity, this very much not how it goes.

And I would argue that giving children a chance to experiment and explore their identities at a young age gives them some space to do that critical thinking.

Same with banning Spacey from working and supporting victims of Me Too, Time’s Up etc with absolutely no thought given to the obvious benefits these people reap from upsetting the status quo.
Whereas the unquestioned derailing of careers of victims of harassment/assault was some great example of critical thinking? Like, of course there will be some people who use this moment opportunistically, but most complaints and allegations have shaken out as true. Immediately deciding that people who say not nice things about celebrities we like is its own kind of lack of critical thinking.



I don't understand what this has to do with fairness. Eminem got a lot of attention when he first hit the scene because he was white. Was that fair? There were alt-rock stations in my area who played Eminem, and it was because of the novelty of it. Cardi B has the power of personality. She is very shrewd about her collaborations (including not being afraid to partner with people more technically skilled than she is). If she's making the most of the zeitgeist, good for her.
See, you say 'because he was white'. No one else, white or Black, has attempted that kind of technical approach or paid such meticulous attention to language. And he officially has the fastest verse ever rapped in 'Rap God'. This, for once, is a wholly objective metric, and whilst I accept there may be undiscovered wunkerkinds elsewhere, they have not hit the scene just yet. Anyway, why on Earth do you think it's because he is white? That's part of why he got attention but nothing to do with technical expertise, which was why I referenced him in the first place.

I'm not sure how this would be an example of risk-taking cinema. Isn't using old stereotypes kind of the opposite of that?
I referenced stereotypes about Russians to note that not everyone has to take it personally and be triggered. Some people just suck it up. And politics and what you term 'exclusion' don't just apply to different demographics! I'd love to see Russians, be it Russian-Americans or Russian-Israeli citizens, utter a word about the unfair portrayal of Russians and Slavs... That's not so fashionable due to the antics of the current Russian regime, so no one talks about that. I used this example to suggest it is totally up to said misrepresented people to act like adults, swallow it and keep going. Russians sure have been doing it for almost a century and never complained about bias or discrimination.

People who get to compain are in themselves lucky. That's what I find extremely amusing about this.



See, you say 'because he was white'. No one else, white or Black, has attempted that kind of technical approach or paid such meticulous attention to language. And he officially has the fastest verse ever rapped in 'Rap God'. This, for once, is a wholly objective metric, and whilst I accept there may be undiscovered wunkerkinds elsewhere, they have not hit the scene just yet. Anyway, why on Earth do you think it's because he is white? That's part of why he got attention but nothing to do with technical expertise, which was why I referenced him in the first place.
Because I don't see how Cardi B being more popular because her content is on trend is an issue of "fairness". Eminem got attention in part because of something he didn't have to work for at all. I mean, I could say it isn't "fair" that the Twilight series outsold many other (in my opinion) much more deserving books.

Technical proficiency is not the ultimate key to greatness or enduring enjoyment. It can certainly be a part of it, no doubt. But there are other aspects to capturing the love of an audience. He is still able to make records. He is still getting his music put on the radio. He is not being denied opportunities.

EDIT: Okay, I am conflating popularity with critical acclaim. I'm not going to remove what I wrote above, just so that no one is confused.

I would be interested in looking at the two reviews you've referenced: the one that praises Cardi B for repeating her past efforts and the one that puts Eminem down for staying the same.

I referenced stereotypes about Russians to note that not everyone has to take it personally and be triggered. Some people just suck it up. And politics and what you term 'exclusion' don't just apply to different demographics! I'd love to see Russians, be it Russian-Americans or Russian-Israeli citizens, utter a word about the unfair portrayal of Russians and Slavs... That's not so fashionable due to the antics of the current Russian regime, so no one talks about that. I used this example to suggest it is totally up to said misrepresented people to act like adults, swallow it and keep going. Russians sure have been doing it for almost a century and never complained about bias or discrimination.

People who get to compain are in themselves lucky. That's what I find extremely amusing about this.
Or maybe it's up to creators to just suck it up when people call them out for using tired stereotypes?



Victim of The Night
Don't be putting words in my mouth by extrapolating my original intent of my post and changing it to a, 'there forth it follows scenario'...that's akin to a strawman argument.

I never said
there's no difference between a high quality or poor quality film. I originally said: I dislike like long, wordy movie reviews and reviews that are mostly compose of synopsis...and I said I prefer to shoot from the hip when I write a review as I favor writing reviews based on my personal reaction.
No words were put in your mouth, at least not by me. You said, "Everything else in your example of a good review is still a personal type of review." My examples were "craft, imagery, design, score, atmosphere" So you said that craft, imagery, design, score, and atmosphere were a "personal type of review". And that is all I said you said.
What I then said was that if one then extrapolates from that, easily, that all of the form components of a film, like design and sound and score and all that, are still personal to the reviewer, then all criticism or critique of even technical aspects of a film is entirely personal and therefore there can be no such thing as a difference between a high-quality or poor-quality film. Because at that point even the technical aspects are subjective.



Victim of The Night
It feels as though the definition of "political" is being stretched to include any film that is intentionally diverse.

My point is that if inclusion is to be seen as a political act, then we must also consider exclusion a political act.

To me, the definition of an "overtly political" film is a film that is about the politics of it main characters. So something like Milk or Hurricane.

But in this discussion, the term political also seems to be applied to films that push diversity even if the film isn't about that diversity. And if that's our working definition of political, then I think we have to look at the other side of the coin, which is films where certain groups have been excluded.

And if the reasons for including a diverse cast are about popularity/audience appeal (similar to why really, really attractive people tend to star in movies), then I see it as being more of an economic argument than a political one, though the two are obviously intertwined.

Ultimately, this is a discussion about critics and their role. The question was raised about whether or not critics are handing out bonus points for films that are more progressive and basically using their role as critics to advance a liberal/progressive agenda. I think that it's dubious to put a "political" label on any film that makes an effort toward diversity or includes LGBT characters, but act as if films that don't make that effort are somehow lacking in their own politics.
Hear, hear!



Because I don't see how Cardi B being more popular because her content is on trend is an issue of "fairness". Eminem got attention in part because of something he didn't have to work for at all. I mean, I could say it isn't "fair" that the Twilight series outsold many other (in my opinion) much more deserving books.

Technical proficiency is not the ultimate key to greatness or enduring enjoyment. It can certainly be a part of it, no doubt. But there are other aspects to capturing the love of an audience. He is still able to make records. He is still getting his music put on the radio. He is not being denied opportunities.

EDIT: Okay, I am conflating popularity with critical acclaim. I'm not going to remove what I wrote above, just so that no one is confused.
Quite a few people, Black and white, including but not limited to critics, have said over the years that, being white, he’s had to work ten times harder to prove that white people could make rap music at all (there was Vanilla Ice, but he was little known), let alone outsell anyone, so I would argue that being white was a distinct disadvantage and impediment in the first decade of Eminem’s career.

Re: your EDIT, I think everything you write above makes sense, I was not confused. Indeed, technical proficiency is not the key to enjoyment but, as I said, I believe it is a critic’s job to commend technical proficiency because that’s a huge (if not the main) part of the craft. In fact, I believe one critic wrote about Music To Be Murdered By, ‘We already know he can rap fast, show us something else’.

That is to be expected, but it shows that veteran artists get no respect for their technical proficiency, and that they are judged by different standards. Which is actually something Eminem has called out on many recent albums, posing the question whether critics want him to retire (read ‘just die already’) and already limiting the extent to which it can be argued that ‘he has nothing to say’. But people don’t like to hear that.

I would be interested in looking at the two reviews you've referenced: the one that praises Cardi B for repeating her past efforts and the one that puts Eminem down for staying the same.
I will try to track it down. Should be a matter of going back through the browser history as it wasn’t so long ago that I read them. Interestingly, I just found one review that says MTMB B Side is the best thing he’s done for years, praising its technical brilliance and language games specifically, but the fact that this is one review among thirty saying he is ‘irrelevant’ and has nothing to say only serves to reinforce my broader point.

Or maybe it's up to creators to just suck it up when people call them out for using tired stereotypes?
It’s definitely fine to call it out and it’s anyone’s right to do so, and creators might be better off ignoring such criticism, but let’s not then apply economic sanctions after someone simply ‘sucks it up’ and doesn’t change.

Part of this thread has been about responding to something being called out. I think the expectation that a creator will respond by changing is unreasonable, is all. And adding economic or social pressure on top to make that happen seems to me to be detrimental to making great art.

Another thing I would add. The emphasis on ‘humanity’ over technical prowess is not harmless. It impacts the quality of education in fields as far removed from controversy as maths. Case in point: less than a month ago, LA maths students were told there was no such thing as a ‘right answer’ and focussing on finding one was ‘racist’ and stemmed from ‘problematic’ colonial history.

This ties in directly with the above, in the sense that if Eminem’s technical rap skills are not worthy of respect and critical praise, then neither is technical skill in other domains nor pure academically-inclined intellect or, well, knowing how to do maths properly. This results at least in part from focussing on ‘humanity’ and suggesting technical skills are irrelevant.

[“Focusing on the correct answer in maths ‘is racist’
Educationalists in California believe that teaching methods perpetuate discrimination
Ben Hoyle, Los Angeles
Thursday May 20 2021, 12.01am, The Times
There is a new frontier in the war on racism: maths.

In California a state education panel is to consider curriculum reforms designed to support “equitable” mathematics instruction for all six million schoolchildren outside the public sector. If approved, getting the “right answer” in a maths problem may no longer be a pupil’s main objective.

The framework sets out to tackle the ways that students’ “mathematics identities are shaped in part by a culture of societal and institutionalised racism”. It argues that this partly explains the history of underrepresentation of black, Hispanic and indigenous people, as well as women and low income students, in “mathematics and mathematics-related domains”.”]

I don’t disagree with thinking outside the box and encouraging it at school. I might even give them bonus points for appearing to focus on the ‘working out’ rather than the answers, but saying correct answers don’t matter in maths is insane.



All of the reading tests my students take involve text they have never seen before.
"The description of the rape was not part of the excerpt in the exam paper"

"There weren’t any references to sexual assault on our GCSE English Language paper."



"The description of the rape was not part of the excerpt in the exam paper"

"There weren’t any references to sexual assault on our GCSE English Language paper."
That was the whole point of the story! Of course the sexual assault wasn’t part of the exam, duh! The kids just Googled it and decided they objected to anything to do with sexual assaults being suggested that they read, which is what I took issue with, as they will definitely end up with a skewed worldview.



That was the whole point of the story! Of course the sexual assault wasn’t part of the exam, duh! The kids just Googled it and decided they objected to anything to do with sexual assaults being suggested that they read, which is what I took issue with, as they will definitely end up with a skewed worldview.
Right. It wasn't "a passage put in front of them on a test" or that was "directly related to trauma". I'd be interested in seeing the exact passage in question, but the incident was only "discovered" afterward when a student chose to track down the original book.


To me, it's similar to a recent attempt at an American college (Rutgers, I believe) that tried to remove Great Gatsby from the curriculum because it vaguely alludes to Daisy having possibly experienced a prior sexual assault. I think the aspect that most offends me is that students are apparently no longer reading Gatsby in high school, but by college, I believe they qualify as "adults".



Right. It wasn't "a passage put in front of them on a test" or that was "directly related to trauma". I'd be interested in seeing the exact passage in question, but the incident was only "discovered" afterward when a student chose to track down the original book.


To me, it's similar to a recent attempt at an American college (Rutgers, I believe) that tried to remove Great Gatsby from the curriculum because it vaguely alludes to Daisy having possibly experienced a prior sexual assault. I think the aspect that most offends me is that students are apparently no longer reading Gatsby in high school, but by college, I believe they qualify as "adults".
Agreed. How utterly ridiculous. And you’d think if people studied classics a bit earlier, who knows, that might impact this lamentable state of affairs.



I believe it is a critic’s job to commend technical proficiency because that’s a huge (if not the main) part of the craft. In fact, I believe one critic wrote about Music To Be Murdered By, ‘We already know he can rap fast, show us something else’.

That is to be expected, but it shows that veteran artists get no respect for their technical proficiency, and that they are judged by different standards. Which is actually something Eminem has called out on many recent albums, posing the question whether critics want him to retire (read ‘just die already’) and already limiting the extent to which it can be argued that ‘he has nothing to say’. But people don’t like to hear that.
By this standard an artist could simply carbon copy their own work infinitely.

Often an artist's particular mix of technical proficiencies gives them an air of novelty when it first comes out. Once that novelty wears off, you start to question how much you enjoy the stuff that goes along with it.

I don't think that veteran artists get no respect for their technical proficiency, I think that it's just human nature to not be as thrilled by something a second time around (or fourth, or fifth . . . ). I think that part of the job of a critic/reviewer is to convey to the reader the sense of joy or wonder that they got from the art. If some of that spark has been dulled by familiarity, I think that is natural. It kind of comes with the territory of considering a piece of art in context.

I will try to track it down. Should be a matter of going back through the browser history as it wasn’t so long ago that I read them. Interestingly, I just found one review that says MTMB B Side is the best thing he’s done for years, praising its technical brilliance and language games specifically, but the fact that this is one review among thirty saying he is ‘irrelevant’ and has nothing to say only serves to reinforce my broader point.
Most of my friends who are into rap haven't talked much about Eminem in the last decade. Is it your sense that among rap fans his album is admired and adored?

It’s definitely fine to call it out and it’s anyone’s right to do so, and creators might be better off ignoring such criticism, but let’s not then apply economic sanctions after someone simply ‘sucks it up’ and doesn’t change.
Who is experiencing economic sanctions for not changing their work?

Another thing I would add. The emphasis on ‘humanity’ over technical prowess is not harmless.
I am not arguing for one over the other. I am saying that I believe criticism (and maybe more specifically reviews, which I think are a little different in purpose and scope) is most useful when it acknowledges that it is a combination of the two.

It impacts the quality of education in fields as far removed from controversy as maths. Case in point: less than a month ago, LA maths students were told there was no such thing as a ‘right answer’ and focussing on finding one was ‘racist’ and stemmed from ‘problematic’ colonial history.
This is a radical and bizarre misreading of the Equitable Math framework.

This ties in directly with the above, in the sense that if Eminem’s technical rap skills are not worthy of respect and critical praise, then neither is technical skill in other domains nor pure academically-inclined intellect or, well, knowing how to do maths properly. This results at least in part from focussing on ‘humanity’ and suggesting technical skills are irrelevant.
They are not really the same.

The music example is about whether technical proficiency is enough to merit a recommendation even if the listener is not engaged by the content.

The education example is about a shift in the idea of what technical proficiency means in a math classroom and moving from an emphasis on the product (the "answer") to the process (the explanation of how one got the answer with an open mind toward how student might do the work of solving).

I don’t disagree with thinking outside the box and encouraging it at school. I might even give them bonus points for appearing to focus on the ‘working out’ rather than the answers, but saying correct answers don’t matter in maths is insane.
No one is saying that correct answers don't matter. They are saying that how a child arrives at their answers is more important in terms of assessing whether a student is proficient.

I ask two children which is larger, 4/5 or 8/9.

CHILD 1: 8/9 is larger because 8 + 9 = 17, but 4 + 5 only equals 9.

CHILD 2: I need to make them equivalent to compare [They mis-count while listing equivalent fractions and think that 4/5 = 36/45 and 8/9 = 32/45]. 4/5 is larger because when you make them equivalent, 36/45 > 32/45

Child 1 has the correct answer. Child 2 has the incorrect answer. Which child actually understands fractions on a conceptual level?



I don't have much to add to the current discussion, but I like this essay from Nick Pinkerton from a few years ago that I think is relevant to some of the points you two are discussing currently.


https://www.filmcomment.com/blog/bom...p-pop-popular/



By this standard an artist could simply carbon copy their own work infinitely.

Often an artist's particular mix of technical proficiencies gives them an air of novelty when it first comes out. Once that novelty wears off, you start to question how much you enjoy the stuff that goes along with it.
You have a point and there’s a danger of that, but even that won’t make said work qualitatively worse.

Enjoyment is something else entirely. I am not talking about enjoyment, I’m talking about objective craft. Even if a veteran artist’s work is not ‘new’, it is no less proficient for that. And even if veteran artists do still get respect for craft, the idea that ‘humanity’ and ‘inclusion’ has a place in the reviewing process is detrimental to that.

Look, this was not intended as an Eminem appreciation debate. I had considered which male, established and hyper-technical artist to reference as my example and wanted to avoid much older creatives like Scorsese, who are partly judged for their legacy and not current output. Hence Eminem. As you yourself admit above, it’s not about who is more popular and it doesn’t matter who gets talked about in rap circles (though he’s an obviously looming presence as a rapper with an Oscar). It’s about objective technical skill and professional prowess, by which metric, the only rapper actually technically superior to Eminem is Twista, who most people haven’t even heard of (sadly). But yes, he is objectively even faster and holds a Guinness record. These are all measurable things.

My point is that some artists are obviously technically superior to others, this is true insofar as we have objective metrics for speed in rap and length and complexity of long takes in film (Viridiana and Citizen Kane long take scene and reverse shots intended to destabilise POVs and disorient the viewer) and what being good at these art forms entails. Focussing on wholly personal reactions and embracing the humanity-driven approach to reviewing creative work means technically accomplished artists are not celebrated enough (or, eventually, at all, because people who constitute critics will cease to understand what pure quality is). Not just that, but these craft wizards are expected to give way to mediocre artists like Cardi B who are ‘fun’ and ‘holler’ about their pussies.

The reason I brought in the ‘decolonising maths’ story is to illustrate that there is a tendency to devalue objectively technical skill in favour of unmeasurable metrics. This is not helpful and it is ultimately much more ‘unfair’ that young white boys who have spent their every waking moment studying still don’t get into Oxbridge due to not having some fancy ‘cultural’ quirk up their sleeve.

If Eminem is such an unhelpful example, let’s go back to Moonlight winning Best Picture. It’s a fine film, and I don’t like La La Land, but that was a much better product technically. I honestly believe the mix-up was kind of fate (I am being sarcastic, but…) Chazelle was and remains one of the most technically accomplished directors in the ‘younger bunch’ and he’s a wunderkind given at what age he did all that. He was certainly the most technically accomplished at that Oscars ceremony. To not award the Best Film to a technically superior film is… not helpful and makes no sense, seeing as the entire purpose of such ‘elite’ and professional-curated awards is to celebrate pure filmmaking skill. Everything else can be about enjoyment if that’s what people want, but awards and critical recognition are for technical prowess.

All I was getting at is, once ‘humanity’ is seen as an objective aspect of filmmaking worth praising, it is extremely likely that respect for technical skill will diminish and disappear. The skill itself will disappear, as will the desire to harvest it.

No matter how well-intentioned or warm or whatever buzzword we want to deploy here Greta Gerwig’s films are, she is no Bergman nor Scorsese, whereas Chazelle just might be, he is a technical genius whose use of colour and editing really stand out, they are literally exceptional. I believe it is… not ‘unfair’ but irrational not to reward that level of polished, ripe skill in favour of the ‘humanity’ of something like Moonlight.

I referenced the Times story (sent it to you) to note that it shows the critical emphasis is shifting away from the sheer quality of things. Unless you are in advanced pure maths territory (the quantum physics of maths with its own Schrödinger’s Cats), answers are either wrong or they’re right. The working out will give you extra points in an exam but you won’t (I hope to Christ!) get full marks with a factually incorrect answer.

Technical skill and superiority exist and they matter, and failing to praise or even simply acknowledge the quality of someone’s craft because of any outside factors is not reasonable from any point of view.

As for who exactly is being disadvantaged - technical geniuses are. They are unlikely to get due recognition because there is a movement spreading, deliberately or not, that devalues craft and places the emphasis on representation and inclusion. In this light, I cite just the ending of the article, which is the most relevant bit:

““If this framework spreads it could condemn a generation of children to irrelevance in science, technology, engineering and math fields, where the right answer is not a matter of opinion,” wrote James Robbins, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council, in USA Today.
Williamson Evers, a former assistant secretary of education under President Obama, wrote in The Wall Street Journal*that “encouraging those gifted in math to shine will be a distant memory”.”

I agree with this point and feel it applies to film and film criticism, is all. Dismissing technical craft as ‘irrelevant’ will simply disadvantage people like Chazelle and Eminem and rob society of a chance to appreciate their work. People whose skill is truly superior will be ‘irrelevant’. Which to me, at least, would be a great shame.



I don't have much to add to the current discussion, but I like this essay from Nick Pinkerton from a few years ago that I think is relevant to some of the points you two are discussing currently.


https://www.filmcomment.com/blog/bom...p-pop-popular/
Thank you, will have a read now.



This is mostly just stuff I thought as I went through Agrip and Tak volleying back and forth. There was a lot to digest there, so its possible some of it has already been touched upon.



1) Not only do I think there is barely any objective measure of a piece of arts inherent value, I'm actually not even sure what kind of value there is in wanting there to be one. One of the great beauties in art is its ephemeral quality. What value is created by there being some measuring stick that gives absolute readings on how good or bad something is? That metric really should be the personal experience of the individual. I believe what we get from a work of art should affect everyone differently. Elicit joy in some, revulsion in others, boredom in those who didn't want to watch it in the first place. These personal experiences are the currency of art. Its one fundamental great beauty. The theatre (or the gallery, or the concert hall) is one of the rare communal places we should be expected to assert our individuality, or eccentricities, or passions, with no worries of how they align in any other way. As a result, any good piece of art, by default, will have to affect everyone differently. The things that specifically make me love something, not only will be, but should be the very same things that put others completely off of it. To hope for the opposite, a world where we can all agree in the inherent worth of something (or its inherent badness) is a dead world as far as I'm concerned.



Ultimately, I think the bigger question is why we should want this in the first place? Will critical agreement expand our sense of communion with the world when we love (or hate) something? That's comforting, for sure. But Good Lord, don't we already have enough of that in every other arena of life. Let's try our best to take advantage of the relatively safe forum of art, and let it highlight our differences (and, even more ideally, allow us to hash out our disagreements with an equal sense of safety and, in the end, a greater understanding why we have these differences)



2) There is some talk about virtuosity being a measurable quality (and, in some ways, it definitely is), but I shudder to think of a world where this is considered as a necessary element to coming to a critical consensus. Or to not acknowledge that sometimes becoming a master of some art can offer us absolutely godawful work, regardless of how much we suspect the artist has been practising. The worth of being a virtuoso is an almost entirely one dimension virtue in that, without the context of what the artist might want to say (which always is going to be polluted by some kind of politics) or 'soul' (which is an almost completely abstract and unquantifiable construct), it rarely can offer much more than being an impressive feat of intellectual or physical dexterity. And personally, I want to move art outside of the realm of other such physically or intellectually dexterous activities as weightlifting, or speed reading, or memorizing the phone book (things we become impressed by simply because they are difficult to do). And to do this, virtuosity kind of has to eventually take a backseat to these more hard to define qualifiers (content, soul, meaning). It certainly can be a great ace in the hole though when we actually have something to say, or feeling to share. Otherwise, pffft.



Also, as a side note to this point, to spend too much time fawning over those who are virtuoso's, is to over look endless other types of artists and artistic movements which shun that which is considered meritorious (Marcel Duchamp, Daniel Johnston, Punk Rock, John Cage, John Cassavetes, Andy Warhol, Charles Bukowski, Dadaism). And by my metric, these are more often than not artists just as worthy of being talked about as the formal perfectionists (Kubrick, Kurosawa, Hemingway, Miles Davis, Michaelangelo,Tarkovsky, Joyce)



3) There has already been a lot of talk about Eminem, so I'll add a new element to the conversation in saying he has always, mostly, kind of sucked, and I don't think his un-pc approach has that much to do with his growing irrelevance (even if it's true he would probably have more trouble breaking through with that kind of material in the current social climate). I think he's a pretty good example of a guy with talent who has only sporadically known what to do or say with it. Since his basic approach has always been pretty superficial in its content, it was almost inevitable he would wear out his welcome. Kind of like the kid you sit with at the back of the class who is really good at dissing all the teachers, but that you kind of know will never amount to much more than that. This will be his great moment in the sun, and in retrospect, no matter how much we might have laughed at first, it's just kinda sad now. So, at least for me, Eminem's schtick has alwasy been pretty boring, no matter how many couplets he can rhyme, or Backstreet Boys he can diss.



I don't have much to add to the current discussion, but I like this essay from Nick Pinkerton from a few years ago that I think is relevant to some of the points you two are discussing currently.


https://www.filmcomment.com/blog/bom...p-pop-popular/
"Content-farmers and advanced-degree eggheads alike can’t resist diving headlong in a big ol’ pile of signifiers like this, though I will not dwell on the irony of people who’ve accrued insurmountable lifelong debt learning the vernacular of theory turning around to use that knowledge to 'unpack' the prepared-by-committee work of obscenely wealthy pop icons."






I don't really trust any kind of critic or fan who is so overly territorial as any of these snobs. But I like the comparison between the ostentatious inclusiveness of Furious 7 and poptimistic dance-pop, where this inclusiveness is more of a cynical marketing ploy than authentic expression. I've complained a lot about the contemporary state of both corporate cinema and music, but my attitude about "rock" has little to do with. I can't stand Maroon 5 or The Killers any more than Cardi B or Taylor Swift. It all falls into the "nakedly mercantile" category for me.



Anyone can be said to ‘kind of suck’. I, for all my sins, grew up in a hyper-erudite family, but can’t stand most Russian (or many other) classics and think Tolstoy is overrated. Like Dostoyevsky, but don’t relate to him or the rest of them for the life of me.

Yet I appreciate their craft, even with no personal fondness for it at all. I see your point, crumbs, but am firmly on the opposite end of the spectrum. I respect ‘cold’ virtuosity and think it’s the way to go. All this makes me wonder whether where one stands on this is in any way linked to empathy.



All this makes me wonder whether where one stands on this is in any way linked to empathy.
I would imagine. Empathy has a way of opening doors to people.