Is he the best film reviewer left, /tv/?

he is the ONLY film reviewer left

>>79729344
He's hardly reviews films at all, he only discusses what he thinks are the political views of the director and the lowest ranking artistic tool of them all, symbolism.

Too many mentions of "muh nationalism muh social decay muh diversity muh post 9/11 era"

Never does he talk about any filmmaking element, just a constant stream of political ideologies.
Still, pretty interesting reads and can form some really usable shitposting sentences

>>79729392
>lowest ranking artistic tool of them all
>symbolism

Opinion discarded. Symbolism is a key element of most artistic works. Quality is the other key element.

>>79729562
>Symbolism is a key element of most artistic works.
Nope, you're factually wrong.

Here's a quote about symbolism from Tarkovsky himself to clear things up for you:
>"I am an enemy of symbols. Symbol is too narrow a concept for me in the sense that symbols exist in order to be deciphered. An artistic image on the other hand is not to be deciphered, it is an equivalent of the world around us. Rain in Solaris is not a symbol, it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero. But it does not symbolise anything. It only expresses. This rain is an artistic image. People always try to find "hidden" meanings in my films. But wouldn't it be strange to make a film while striving to hide one's thoughts? Whenever an image is turned into a symbol, the thought becomes walled in so to speak, it can be fully deciphered. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite"

>>79729723
>factually wrong
>gives me someones opinion

Thanks, but you're factually wrong ;)

>>79729382
THIS

>>79729723
>A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning

But that's wrong. Symbols hold different meaning depending on who is viewing/interpreting it.

Is he an idiot?

>>79729344
It sounds like he barely knows what he's even talking about and isn't even reviewing the films themselves.

>>79729895
> Symbols hold different meaning depending on who is viewing/interpreting it.

How?
When Snyder makes on the nose biblical symbolism of Superman=Jesus, he means exactly that, you can't interpret it in any other way, it's finite.

Symbolism implies that there is a singular universal answer to the symbol you present.

>>79730479
>superman = jesus

Because Jesus means different things to a lot of people.

>>79729895
He means definite meaning in regards to the ambiguity of what he considers the true concept of artistic images- expression

Can't believe you guys are trying so hard to be contrarian that you're claiming symbols are bad

>>79729392
All good critics should double as sociologists. From the sounds of it you just want critics to be slightly more professional Chris Stuckman's.
>acting was 7/10, cinematography was 5/10, score was 8/10 so overall movie is 7.5/10
Is this what you want criticism to be?

Pauline Kael and Armond White are the only critics worth reading. Also maybe Slavoj Zizek if you count him as a critic.

>>79729344
He gets paid to shitpost. he has the dream job, and he's damn good at it.

>>79729392
>Never does he talk about any filmmaking element
he doesn't prove he watched the fucking movies, he mentions no detail

>le contrarian nigger
Every fucking day, he's /tv/'s Scaruffi except that Scaruffi hasn't gotten thrown out from every single critic association that dared receive him