Against The Current

Because Diversity Is A Gift, Often Overlooked


If there is one thing that scares me more than being the person who disagrees with every single consensus on film, it's being the one who always agrees with them.

This was the thought on my mind when I was reading Rob Humanick's great essay on Bad Journalism, which loathes the public lynching of certain movies for seemingly no apparent reason - save for one which is called 'because everybody else seems to hate it'; yet most of the time this is something more subliminal than spoken out. The major torchbearers to this movement are paid critics like Stephanie Zacharek herself, who, despite being great at what they do, frequently disappoint me with their aims to intimidate the tastes of their opposers using elaborate sentences and sophisticated allusions as their weapons (e.g. "This isn't a picture filled with wonder and a sense of fun; it's so jaded and crass that I almost wonder if it's a highly unscientific experiment designed to gauge how little audiences will settle for these days" for Speed Racer). A close second are some of my fellow bloggers like Matt, who I came across in the comments section of 'Because I Saw Film' and had a small, unpleasantish discussion. Matt has a cool blog that I enjoy reading frequently; but when he was upset with my profound dislike for the film Young Frankenstein, he chose to question my credibility using the fact that I place No Country for Old Men instead of Fargo or The Departed instead of Goodfellas in my Top 50 list (Not that I'm holding grudges, I just thought he makes a good example). When these kinds of intimidations exist, they tend to affect our opinions, either directly or subconsciously, making it harder for us to transcend the borderlines of consensus thought. To me though, it seems like a complete waste of time to defend the opinions of the majority this fiercely; and I can't understand how people find in themselves enough energy and enthusiasm to do so. The way I see it, these opinions are perfectly capable of protecting themselves (since they run no risk of being ignored) so it's totally pointless to try and suppress a handful of odd voices in the crowd. Their influence will be less significant in any case.

It's no lie that once a movie is labeled 'uncool to like' (Titanic, Speed Racer and Troy are a few examples), there is little that marketing campaigns, advertisements, and a handful of sincerely positive opinions out there can do. Yet the other end of the spectrum tends to annoy me more. Recently, I have been reading (and having fruitful discussions in) a blog named Screaming Blue Reviews, the contributors of which call it "an online journal of dissent". The frequent overrating of certain films today is what's troubling them, and thinking of Transformers, Crash and pretty much everything that Clint Eastwood has directed recently as a couple of examples, I tend to sympathize (although they have a much more radical example than these, which is called There Will Be Blood. Interesting huh?). In their own words: "We feel there is a growing tendency to overvalue many films according to pedigree, or (worse) by the force of their marketing. If a film insists upon its greatness, many critics often fall in lockstep to validate that claim. We feel this should not be so, and have started this blog to offer a counterpoint to the noise of those bandwagons." Another aspect to this phenomenon is loving a film for all the wrong reasons; of course everybody is free to like whatever they want in a movie they watch but when this superficial attitude slips into one's professional (or semi-professional for that matter) reviews where it is exposed to many readers, it ceases to be acceptable. Most recent example that I can name on the top of my head is No Country For Old Men, for which you can find countless of reviews that praise its intensity and solidity as a thriller/slasher movie. This is indeed enough reason to like it, but when this opinion multiplies like fleas on a sick dog and when the reasons behind the film's brilliance is reduced to this, counter arguments will focus less on the actual noteworthy aspects. The whole discussion will be rendered less fertile and more futile.

I would respectfully want to oppose all these. This does not necessarily mean that I don't do the same mistakes ever, but at least I am conscious of these pitfalls and I try to avoid them whenever I can. The aim of this post was to announce another label called 'Against the Current' which will be stamped on the reviews/articles in The Long Take whenever I feel like I'm opposing consensus thought with what I write. All this makes me sound like a guy, trying too hard to prove his worth by bragging about how different he is, I am sure; but trust me, this is not the case. I'm comfortable with the fact that more often than not, I tend to agree - All the more reason to emphasize and protect my opinions when I don't. To be honest, I find it quite easy and cheap to be constantly attacking popular culture icons and critically-acclaimed, audience-favorite movies out there. When it's forced, diverse opinions are more annoying than anything but there is a reason to why we read some critics and follow some blogs on a regular basis, and it's not about confirming our own opinions or those of the majority, but rather challenging them with unique perspectives presented by these people.

Let me risk sounding a little naive in order to make a small but important request: Don't be a fascist when it comes to unconventional opinions. Most of the time, their benefits will far outweigh their capabilities to do harm.

Edit: Here is another insightful article about a related issue: 'Don't Insult Your Readers' by Matte Havoc. Enjoy.