I suspect that if I tried to turn a technical review of Trouble in Paradise into a referendum on the inherent immorality of capital, people would object to that as well. It doesn't help that Svet's analysis is clearly in the teeth of the film (by his own description)- he's not reading along with and being guided by the work, but looking for a crack to cram his garbage into.

Care to offer a few examples of left-wing bloviating in reviews which forum members here have applauded or defended?

Yep!

I don't have any examples in mind. People were specifically railing against right-wing bloviating, which raised in my mind the question whether people would be similarly bothered by left-wing bloviating.

It seems some people really meant they were bothered by a politically tinged review on blu-ray.com rather than the right-wing content of the review.

For my part, I don't especially care whether a review is political or not. But hypocrisy bothers me.

Unless you can cite some examples of hypocrisy here, I think you owe your fellow forum members an apology for a completely unwarranted slap.

That Blu-Ray.com review was just flat out obnoxious regardless of where your interests lie. You basically had to plow through a freaking essay on Svet's take on the European Union before getting to the review proper, and even then he tells people not to buy the disc because it doesn't jibe with his politics.

Poilitics can definitely have some role in bona fide "film criticism" but it seems to me it is mostly out of place when reviewing home video releases (beyond tangential mention in passing) unless somehow the quality of a release has, somehow been impacted by political issues (for example, a release has been subject to significant censorship). I agree with heartofsilence -- this was a rubbishy review, regardless of the political "content".

I didn't slap anyone. I asked a question that was exploring whether there is a double standard based on the previous comments, which were specifically targeting perceived "right-wing bloviating." It appears from the responses that people agree that left-wing bloviating would've been just as inappropriate. That being the case, I don't see anyone here being hypocritical.

And I agree with your comment right above this one.

Had the review involved left-wing bloviation, people probably would have commented on such fact -- but it didn't, it only involved right-wing BS. What I sense is that because you personally agreed with the political point of view espoused, you felt the need to punch back -- based on the purely hypothetical possibility that someone here _might_ not similarly criticize a lousy review that spent most of its space espousing left-ish ideology. Not impressed by your attempt to pass your comment off as simply an innocent "inquiry". Not a way to make friends and (positively) influence people here.

I can say that wasn't my intent. As I said, I don't completely agree with the point of view of the review and I disagree with his read of the film. I am genuinely interested in the question.

The question was raised in my mind because I am reading the new biography about Eric Rohmer, which talks about how he was perceived as a right-wing -- conservative -- film critic. The more general question about political leanings and film criticism is interesting to me too.

I can't say that I'm trying to influence anyone: that's why I started by asking questions instead of launching into some diatribe or attempting to defend the review in question.

I don't think that one can begin to understand Rohmer without at least taking his religious and political conservatism into account. That said, it seems that the impact of his ideology on his film-making receded after his first films (but did it come back, to some extent, in a different fashion perhaps, in his last works). But what Rohmer did and what svet does are not remotely comparable.

That said -- don't put thoughts/words into the heads/mouths/typing fingers of other posters here. Just don't.

I appreciate your statements on Rohmer. Any comparison of him to svet is purely accidental!

As for the rest, you are putting thoughts/words into my head/mouth/typing fingers when I have stated my intent and admitted my potential bias. So you'll excuse me for finding your admonition a tad, let's say, ironic.

I don't think it's a terribly radical contention that progressivism is far more tolerated in the world of arts/criticism than conservatism is. I know more hardcore, capital-S Socialist cinephiles in my circles than I do ones who are openly even slightly right of centre (let alone hardcore conservatives or Trump-voting fascists!), a dynamic that is clearly not reflected in society at large – so we do live in a bit of an echo chamber and likely are a little biased. If Jonathan Rosenbaum starts his review with a long preamble about politics, I'm down with it. But I think it's fair to say Svet is no Rosenbaum...

Oh, I don't know, I think a long, rabid, misplaced social justice rant in a technical review would get the same number of snarky comments here. The extremes of both the left and the right have come in for a lot of criticism these days from all sides, and I don't expect that to be different here. See for instance our reaction to Mike D'angelo's article on how Boyhood was racist, a familiar progressive critique couched in equally familiar left-wing rhetoric that was criticized here mostly by members who are well known to be on the left. And I can think of at least one known left-wing feminist member here who takes swipes at empty, misplaced feminist rhetoric from time to time.

I think this board rather evenly dislikes puffed-up extremist political rhetoric from whatever side of the spectrum, especially if it's replacing real thought and dialogue.

Yes, I honestly haven't noticed any especial political bias in this respect.

I don't mind movie analysis through the political or social prism. Many movies actually lend themselves to such analysis (like Get Out, recently), it's not an issue as such, but it needs to be done factually.

Here, it's not a matter of the analysis being right-wing or left-wing. The issue is Svet using the movie as a tool to propagate his own biased view of Europe. He's not reviewing the movie anymore, he's just twisting it to make it fits his own European view (despite the movie giving a very manichean description of French low-wage living areas, and a surprisingly out-of-context last act which looked closer to a Terminator sequence than a socio-political movie).

That's just sophism 101, and it's on a site that badly wants to avoid any political discussion in its forum.

I was surprised by how Svet had been allowed for about a month to post explicit pro-Trump propaganda on his profile before he had to delete these and stop posting new ones. That the writers' team there allows such a blatantly biased propaganda piece surprises me even more. When he concludes that "The final third of the film is an awful attempt to defend the hypocrisy of the elite European politicians who have been trying hard to sell the idea that by uprooting people and permanently relocating them to a different part of the world they are solving their problems, while quietly and diligently serving the interests of powerful business and political players with dangerous global agendas.", he just refers to an imaginary movie that doesn't exist anywhere else that in his own mind.



On a totally different matter, I suppose that blu-ray.com's standard layout "forces" the reviewer to post a movie review, even when he doesn't want to. When I started at Retro-HD.com, I had to provide a small review, even if it only was a few lines, and this was requested by the "boss" there, so I wasn't in a position to refuse. However, I quickly stopped providing them. There are movie reviewers on the site, and that's their job to do these reviews. Secondly, I don't like writing movie reviews anymore. I'm relatively poor at it, and it's very time consuming. Thirdly, as wrote above by others, when people come to read a technical review, that's all they look for and all they want to find. So let's cut the crap and stick to the essentials. I prefer to write another review or watch another movie than spend time typing stuff I don't want to write anyway.

I guess though that the BD reviewers there could bypass all this by simply copy-pasting the movie summary and be done with it.

New York Observer has unceremoniously kicked Rex Reed to the curb.

Darn.

A.O. Scott is on a roll lately with his brutal reviews of recent blockbusters, including The Mummy and Pirates of the Caribbean.

For no particular reason, the New York Times presents its top 25 films of the century so far, with some input from Richard Linklater, Ava Duvernay, Guillermo del Toro, and others.

They also present some top 10s of the same period from a disparate group of directors, including Denis Villeneuve, Sofia Coppola, and... Brett Ratner!

He picks two Jonathan Glazer movies

(Paul Feig's list is actually the real runt of the litter here.)

Poor choice of a Pixar film - I already posted my disappointment elsewhere, but it felt gooey and fatally simplistic given its ambitions. I didn't think it was a patch on Wall•E or Up.

Munich was also a bit underwhelming. Too bad one of them refused to put A.I. down.

I like Judd Apatow, but I feel like he's more suited for TV work (The Larry Sanders Show, Freaks and Geeks).

They want me to pay $25-$50 for a chance to POSSIBLY win a Blu-Ray or Blu Rays? You can freaking buy some for less than that on Amazon. And with free shipping you're obviously guaranteed it below the price you'd be paying on this useless Patreon.

I understand Patreon and why it exists but seriously?

Oof, just let yourself perish Slant. This isn't a good look.