|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 10, 2021 12:30:00 GMT -8
True, and he's really not a hardcore right-winger (unless compared to most other critics, lol). It's probably more of the generation gap at work; most TV critics featured on Metacritic are in their 30s or 40s, while Garvin is (I think) in his 70s.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Jan 10, 2021 17:40:54 GMT -8
You have convinced me, Snipes. I think the term cultural genocide is fine, similar to the term character assassination as you have noted. However, people eliminated the "cultural" part and just calling it a genocide I still would have an issue with, in the same way that if someone dropped the "character" and called a character assassination just a plain assassination I would also dislike. I also am a big believer that languages should be fluid, I just don't like the way its currently used to equate different scaled actions and put them on a similar scale just by using the same word for both.
In terms of the critics bubble, I think it's becoming more and more pronounced as even critics can't hope to tackle every single show. Many critics wait for shows to develop word of mouth among critics, and then dig in if things become popular. As a result it's hard for many shows to take hold unless they reach some sort of critical mass (literally). I think that's what we're seeing and why critics who are more insulated can have the different takes and shows they enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Jan 11, 2021 11:36:00 GMT -8
I do totally understand where you're coming from in your reluctance to use certain terminologies to equate events or circumstances that aren't in themselves quantitatively comparable, and the examples I'd given do muddy the waters somewhat given that they were entwined with a system that did visit death on the victimised party anyway, so it's easier to judge the cultural erasure as just part of a wider system of oppression designed to wipe blood off hands. And for clarity, I'd really baulk at calling the natural erosion of languages alone a kind of cultural genocide when really a lot of smaller tongues just vanish out of globalisation's necessity of speaking the broader ones - though I would argue that it would be if, say, the Philippines' charming government suddenly decided "Right, you're all speaking Tagalog from here on out and that's final". (Incidentally, I went there assuming I could get by on my Spanish, and no, you really can't ).
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Jan 18, 2021 15:03:50 GMT -8
A "cultural genocide" instance I forgot to bring up before was the theory about Alexander the Great intentionally destroying the Sphynx's (presumably broad) nose. Few critics give it much credence (which didn't stop Nas treating it as verbatim in "I Can") and personally I reckon gravity dealt with it, but even as apocrypha I think it's a fascinating example of how a culture might be subdued in favour of selling or downplaying an idea, kinda like how simply un-WASPifying all the Catholic Church's artwork and statues might (might) have given subsequent slave-traders pause. Again it's a by-product of broader imperialism (some of the subjects actually came to view Alexander as a liberator), but if the gesture was intentional then the idea is consistent with other historical rewrites.
You've probably heard of the ongoing Crazy Horse statue in Black Hills (counterpointing the Rushmore heads, of course). Initially I thought this was a kind gesture to the indigenous humans of America, but most Natives actually take umbrage with it, stating that a more accurate and faithful representation of their culture and belief systems would be to simply leave the mountain alone. Similarly, the West is inclined to dismiss early African culture because there are fewer representations of humans, which cements a kind of arrogantly blanket idea that 'civilisation' is measured by self-iterations in stone and that nomadic and impermanent lifestyles are inherently ripe for dismissal.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Mar 4, 2021 6:27:36 GMT -8
Number 2: We Are Who We Are (HBO) Oh yeah, so I finished this about a week ago, but only by bingeing the second half; I generally don't care for it as a practice, and only carry it out myself if I feel a kind of "let's get it over with" commitment rather than letting each episode breathe. Basically the elements of it that I found interesting or endearing cropped up too often in fits and starts, and what surrounded it felt far too ponderous. I mean, I had such little sense of location here that I generally couldn't tell if episodes were days, weeks or months apart. It could be argued that this listlessness complimented the lackadaisical nature of the kids' experience, but it can make for laborious viewing. I was also at a bit of a loss as to the purpose of certain cinematic techniques, like the paused "whoop" from Sarah and the slow-mo walk-to-disappear moment in (I think) episode 5. The latter may be a comment on Caitlin's female aspect soon disappearing, but the presentation just felt juxtaposed rather than organic. I also had trouble with a number of dramatic conceits, such as an episode where one character's death was positioned as heart-rending when he'd barely had any screentime save that spent at a seemingly endless party. I think what routinely wore me down, though, was this repeated insistence that pretty much every character (except the bellicose officer, naturally) could be 'persuaded' towards gender-bending or bisexuality by simply being around other people doing just that. It actually had the inadvertent effect of reminding me of some of those old prejudicial talking-heads interviews where fearful norms spoke about gays creating a "queer atmosphere", or something. I'm also unsure if I liked the idea of altering the opening credits for every episode or if it simply disappointed me that Guadagnino wasn't doing a Walter Ruttman or Hans Richter thing instead.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Mar 5, 2021 14:23:41 GMT -8
That's a shame. I didn't have any issues with the things you did, but I definitely see the ways that the show can hit you the wrong way if you aren't in the right mood for it. I especially didn't really find that people could be "persuaded" towards bisexuality or gender fluidity, it's more that there's a greater sense of discovery available in the current era where you can be whoever you want to be, and societal pressures on gender or sexuality aren't as strong. Teenagers are just more willing to explore nowadays than they were even when I was one 15 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Mar 6, 2021 12:57:50 GMT -8
Aye, but that isn't the case with the relationship between Maggie and Caitlin's mother. There's a nod towards feelings emerging despite/from social pressure or simply because they are both ignored by their respective spouses, but the whole scenario seems to throw two women together just because that appears to be the series' trend, and that potential dramatic beat is accordingly forgotten about straight after.
I did appreciate the pang of disappointment from Fraser as he saw the poet guy kissing a girl, but that too later becomes redundant as he can seemingly be coaxed into a threesome at the drop of a hat just a couple of episodes later. It all felt a little agenda-y in these instances.
|
|