Do all films deserve to be criticized in a vacuum?

>>84629029
Good question OP, and kudos for trying to start a legit discussion /tv/ related. board is shit tonight
>inb4 it's like this every night

To your question, and I can only speak for myself, but I don't know how I couldn't have judged TPM without the context of hype, its place in the saga, etc. I don't think I have a refined enough critique to be able to judge something like that in a vacuum.

But for something like a Polanski film or Godard, I don't even really know what Polanski did or was accused of doing and this is the first time I have heard anything about transgressions of Godard. I could watch their movies without considering anything bad they've done IRL.

But I also think a lot of art these days is meant by their creators to actually be judged and viewed and interpreted not only as the work itself, but the entire process, person/people, and circumstances around the creation of it.

>>84629029
>Do all films deserve to be criticized in a vacuum?
>is it fair to critique The Phantom Menace by placing it in the context of it being the fourth film in a six-part saga and it first premiering with the culmination of 16 years of intense hype? Or should it only be judged on its merits as an individual, audio-visual work of art?
I think it's about finding a balance. TPM is a prequel to a beloved trilogy and deserves to be seen as such. However, it's also important to acknowledge the years between the films and the current state of cinema.
Like, if it doesn't quite fit in with the visual style, I think that's okay. But if it's doing really silly things with the plot that reflect poorly on the originals, then that's not okay. For example, making everything much brighter and more colourful - fine. More CGI and less practical effects - fine. Making Anakin the creator of C3PO and throwing in several jokes about farting and defecation - not fine.

>is it fair to critique any of Jean-Luc Godard's, Roman Polanski's, Woody Allen's, or David Lynch's films without taking into consideration the IRL transgressions of their directors?
Yeah, absolutely. Same goes with the Hacksaw Ridge controversy. Gibson made an excellent film. You can like his work while still acknowledging that that the director is a piece of shit. If I ever saw Bill Cosby IRL I wouldn't bother asking him for an autograph or saying hello to him, but that doesn't mean I'm going to boycott all of his standup that ever made me laugh.

I deliberately try not to know anything about a film behind-the-scenes stuff until I actually watch the film. I even usually watch trailers for films after I've seen the film.

>>84629029
Well I think there's sort of a balance. Obviously you have to take into account those things, because it's nearly impossible to separate them especially if the movie makes reference to specific aspects of the real world. But at the end of the day, you do have to judge the films themselves. It's nearly impossible to critique them in a total vacuum because objectivity is impossible.

>>84630398
Polanski anally raped a 14 year old. And then he fled the country to avoid consequences for it.

>>84629029
I judge films solely on the film itself. Roman Polanski is a piece of shit, but I wouldn't tell anyone not to watch Rosemary's Baby or Chinatown because of that. I guess the only time i'd take a director's life or actions into account is if the film was directly referencing it. If Polanski made a movie that alludes to sexual abuse, then yeah what he did would be in the fore front of my mind.

As for TPM, the context of the other films matter in the film's overall critique. A sequel or prequel has to do the previous movies justice in terms of adding to the universe and making a genuinely interesting continuation of the series. Obviously, the film has to be judged on it's own merit too, but I think a sequel has to capture the magic that made the original movie good.

I don't think the hype matters all to much. I think The Force Awakens sucks, but why I think about why, I never think about how let down I was after waiting 10 years, I just think the movie sucks because it sucks.

>>84630398
>>84630583
>>84630682
>>84630863
For once in human history, there is was an intelligent discussion on 4chan.org
You have made me very proud

>>84630988
And I just ruined it by making a terrible grammatical mistake

>>84631016
well I said fore front instead of forefront, so you're not the only one

>>84629029
>David Lynch
What are his transgressions aside from his obvious repeated transgressions against honest filmmaking?

File: io2n82.png (1MB, 1116x718px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1116x718px

>>84631082
The only thing I know of is an actor who worked on a few Lynch projects accused him of raping his daughter and having Jack Nance killed. He posted about it on facebook

>>84631082
He allegedly raped his daughter.

According to some sources, Leland Palmer is a semi-autobiographical character.

Allegedly.

>>84631082
Also David Lynch is one of the most honest auteurs still working. A dishonest filmmaker could not have made Part 8 of Twin Peaks: The Return.

Kys

>>84629029
Watching Godard's Contempt and Anna Karina films while acknowledging their tumultuous relationship and ruined pregnancy does make more of an impact on my perception of the film.

File: file.jpg (109KB, 920x714px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 920x714px

The Phantom Menace depends on recognition of the prior films. It does not want to stand on its own and it cannot. The Phantom Menace depends on the viewer being familiar with Star Wars. So it should be judged in that light. It's still a rather poor film.

Now your second point, I would never take away from a work because of what the artist did unless they stole the work from someone else. The background of the artist does play a part in understanding their work, but when we are judging the direction of the actors, shot composition, the writing of characters, etc it should not matter.

Think of Vertigo. The movie stands by itself as a fantastic Hitchhock film. The first time I saw it, I did not know it was a Hitchcock film. I gained some understanding of it. After reading about it and finding out how he treated actresses rather like how the protag in the film dresses up his love interest, it gave me a deeper understanding of the film and the meaning behind it.

>>84631235
I don't buy it. He is obviously super bitter and feels rejected by Lynch, so he's lashing out. Also seems like he has serious mental health issues. There are some other posts where he's praising Hitler and National Socialism, and despite this, he seems to be a Bernie Sanders supporter.

I usually judge a film by itself, but looking at the behind-the-scenes of its making makes me appreciate it more, even if the movie itself wasn't that good

>>84629029
yes and no. I don't think there's an ultimate ideal in terms of criticism where pursuing the logical conclusion of some singular critical perspective begets an ultimate exegesis of a work. To me there's no reason why a person can't dialectically suspend criticism to view a work both in and outside a vacuum, along with exploring whatever perspectives contribute to ultimately enhancing one's interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_text

It has been judged in a vacuum, and its still a shitty film

Placing within context just gives us why its a shitty film

>>84629029
The Phantom Menace ought to be judged divorced from the hype, but it's nevertheless a prequel in a series and asks (if not require) the audience to take it as such. That doesn't mean it can't be judged independently, but you're doing it a disservice if you don't also look at it with that context. The connections that movie makes to prior ones is achieved by the film itself, not just the way it was presented in advertising. Much of the narrative tension comes from that.

>>84629029
No, because they aren't conceived and created in a vacuum. Dumb question.