Thank you for this. You've articulated everything I've been trying to about this film. I am so horrified by the fascist Red Scare adjacent downtown scene evolution. What was once a safe place for actual creatives and outsiders is now a home to shit-posters and hateful cis white folks with basic preppy non-style. I heard Betsey Brown on the Ion podcast talk about how the plot was kind of a reaction to MeToo/white folks being overlooked for gigs in film. While I know firsthand that there is truth to that experience, what a spiteful way to tell that story. Do you think this is all just a backlash to the MeToo era or a ripple effect of Trump times? Either way I hate it, thanks.
It's funny that this is the review that inspired Brown and Vack's meltdown/ritual shaming scheme a few months later. All things considered, this is such a tame review of something that does such a bad job of navigating its own obnoxious (or oblivious, as Brown would have it) ideas. As if there wasn't already too much good art for one lifetime, Brown shows up with two handfuls of shit and expects an audience to be generous with its time (we weren't busy, right?) and good will; to take the time and care see through her repellant framing to whatever the fuck it is she has to say about some bullshit.
"Even though it may appear to be about transness, the film really is a satire of the white cis male’s quest for relevance"
This is a tongue in cheek description, of course. The subtext of the film, which is set up by the official answer is to show the cold narcissism and selfishness inherent in both activities, which are really one and the same. Detractors can't draw that connection without narcissistic injury to their egos and thus have to reject the premise.
Finally saw this thing, dude makes it sound like the Chris Chan documentary, which, all other critiques being valid I guess, simply isn't the case. You don't have to personally like Peter Vack, and being this doompilled with a snarky smirk on his face actually is kinda fashy, but the guy can act, or at least muster enough nuance and emotional ambiguity and depth that it doesn't come off as dumb and slapsticky and minstrel show.
Thank you for this. You've articulated everything I've been trying to about this film. I am so horrified by the fascist Red Scare adjacent downtown scene evolution. What was once a safe place for actual creatives and outsiders is now a home to shit-posters and hateful cis white folks with basic preppy non-style. I heard Betsey Brown on the Ion podcast talk about how the plot was kind of a reaction to MeToo/white folks being overlooked for gigs in film. While I know firsthand that there is truth to that experience, what a spiteful way to tell that story. Do you think this is all just a backlash to the MeToo era or a ripple effect of Trump times? Either way I hate it, thanks.
This is one of the worst takes of all time, congrats
It's funny that this is the review that inspired Brown and Vack's meltdown/ritual shaming scheme a few months later. All things considered, this is such a tame review of something that does such a bad job of navigating its own obnoxious (or oblivious, as Brown would have it) ideas. As if there wasn't already too much good art for one lifetime, Brown shows up with two handfuls of shit and expects an audience to be generous with its time (we weren't busy, right?) and good will; to take the time and care see through her repellant framing to whatever the fuck it is she has to say about some bullshit.
"Even though it may appear to be about transness, the film really is a satire of the white cis male’s quest for relevance"
This is a tongue in cheek description, of course. The subtext of the film, which is set up by the official answer is to show the cold narcissism and selfishness inherent in both activities, which are really one and the same. Detractors can't draw that connection without narcissistic injury to their egos and thus have to reject the premise.
Fascinating read. i appreciate that this came out as a piece about a piece, I think it benefits from it.
Finally saw this thing, dude makes it sound like the Chris Chan documentary, which, all other critiques being valid I guess, simply isn't the case. You don't have to personally like Peter Vack, and being this doompilled with a snarky smirk on his face actually is kinda fashy, but the guy can act, or at least muster enough nuance and emotional ambiguity and depth that it doesn't come off as dumb and slapsticky and minstrel show.
Is this the Frederic Jameson pitch for the "Bad Trouble" episode? (Sorry, could be I bookmarked the wrong link. I'm not that hip with computers.)