Профиль

I don’t think Odysseus is gloried by the film and it’s odd to me to think he is by the text

I have, I wasn’t interested in what I read, hence why I’m not reading the rest of it. If you liked it, that’s fine by me

Classics translators don’t have to write interesting film criticism to be really good classics translators

Here’s a real spicy one: from what I’ve seen floating around here and elsewhere from her review (and I could be completely wrong in this assessment), I’m giving the same care she gave the film as a text. I am just not that interested in reading it in full, but I’m not writing a review of her review

And John Leguizamo! The three of them were really top of their respective games. I could go on and on. I think the casting was exceptional and the secondary cast were all giving it their all

I also enjoyed Anne Hathaway. Probably my favourite performance from her in years

this is a useful mechanical breakdown of what will probably happen in november when trump tries to steal his second election. it’s all right there in plain sight

Do not give me everything I desire, and if I ever complain a text does not give me everything I wanted from it, I give you permission to kick me

I think, for example, Hideo Kojima changing Death Stranding 2 because too many playtesters liked it, is an amazing response to universal praise before release. We deserve friction and tension!

I reject criticising a text for not being another text. I think this is actually a consumerist mode of engagement with media, viz. not delivering what one desires. We can reject a text for existing qua existing, but that requires explaining why its existence is undesirable

If this was her point, for example, then cool, but I don’t think it was. I like better critique, not no critique bsky.app/profile/kima...

Maybe Wilson makes that argument in her review. Guess I’ll never know because I’m not especially interested in reading it in full after seeing so many screengrabs floating about that didn’t have this interesting level of critique

Now *that* is a far more interesting conversation to have, e.g. the prevalence of ‘shooting and crying’ media.

And you’re free to think I literally said what I didn’t say. I can’t stop you. People can write whatever they want to, and I can’t stop them, and for a film review, I’m not interested in telling them they can’t or shouldn’t write whatever they want. It’s a book review

I literally did not. Not figuratively. I literally did not. And I repudiate that reading, and didn’t imply it. And haven’t reconsidered it. I don’t control her. I don’t want to control what she writes. She can write whatever she wants

If she’s doing that, fantastic! But it’s a relatively common critique of a text, at least as I’ve seen, to say it doesn’t do what it doesn’t do (and this is bad), that the protagonist isn’t heroic (and this is bad) (or the protagonist must be heroic [but they’re bad and this is bad]). That’s cheap!

It’s a tautology to say a film does not do what it doesn’t do. That’s cheap. Perhaps in her book review she provides a far more refined analysis than what she provided in what I’ve seen, situating the film in context and using it as a jumping-off point for a critique of broader society. Or not.

From what I’ve seen in her review, she’s doing a relatively more recent form of textual analysis that doesn’t analyse the text per se or its context, but expresses frustration that the text isn’t X,Y,Z. I’ll say it: she can write what she wants, so I disagree with your reading of what I wrote

But if we’re talking about the rise of auteurs within the film industry and costs of film, the stanning of specific artists and refusal to engage in critique, that’s another phenomenon worthy of investigation

Not seen that attitude around here. People are free to be wrong, be it Nolan or Wilson, about their second-order attitudes towards works of fiction. I’m not impressed by the occasional screengrab I’ve seen of her review, and am interested why there’s a rise odd attitudes towards critique of texts