"Seriously Pete, don't you ever have anything nice to say?"
I'm not sure what exactly compels me to respond to Neal's renewed accusations (see the comment line of Culturology 23)--it's certainly not out of respect for his ideas, so I would suppose that, basically, I've got nothing more pressing to write about this week, and generally don't like it when there are casually negative things floating around about me. This, of course, stems from last week's discussion of Watchmen, and Neal's charge (in paraphrase) that I was being elitist and not appropriately considering the movie's audience. Now, I am unapologetic about my elitism; frankly, I think I've earned it, insofar as I never claim to be an elitist, as such, but don't argue about it, necessarily, when such accusations are applied. I reckon that its in the nature of all human cultures that there will be elitists, and if not intellectual elitists, then certainly there are humans that excel at what they do. Intellectual elitists, who I think, more or less, are what Neal was griping about when he was griping about my culturological approach, then, are no different from anyone else that is good at what they do. The problem is that America, for several decades now, has been breeding a generally anti-intellectual culture which a) encourages people to be idiots and b) recommends that they resent it when other people are more educated than they are.
But I'm not going to let this post get out of control; I have no intention of just soap-boxing here like some righteous nerd. Again, though, I think that I do have plenty of nice things to say, and I have said them (my commentaries on both Coraline and Push, for instance, were quite positive). Which still isn't quite the point...
Neal's argument that I failed in my criticism to consider Watchmen's wider audience before panning it (I didn't pan it, Neal accused me of panning it) is a perfect example of how fundamental American anti-intellectualism leaks into the thought processes of (we presume) a (relatively) educated commenter such as Neal:
1) Consider the appeal to an "everyperson" audience for the movie: my criticism was unnecessarily negative (and, indeed, blinded by its negativity) because I failed to be aware of the fact that I was watching it from the vantage of a comics-fan, thereby failing to consider how "normal" "movie-goers" would feel (I use "feel" here over "think" since we can't be certain that this everyperson "thinks" at all, insofar as it is my thinking which problematizes my "feelings" about the movie). First of all, I said at the top of my post that I had no intention of writing a review. It's not my job, as a culturologist, to let "people" know if the movie is good or not. I'm here to provide a well-considered interpretation of any given cultural artifact. If a given artifact sucks, but doesn't completely suck, I'm under no obligation to say "but it didn't completely suck" unless that incompleteness is culturologically interesting. To extend that and then accuse my criticism of being incomplete due to its lack of "nice things to say" misses the point entirely.
2) Neal's implied concern for the "everyperson" is itself a brand of elitism. He, and the thousands of other (we presume) (relatively) educated Americans like him have absorbed enough American pop culture to believe that there's something to this idea that smarty-pants people like myself are just bored assholes with too much time on our hands. Which is not to say that I'm not, to some extent, an easily-bored asshole, but rather that the "audience" for most culturological investigations is going to be primarily made up of people who are similarly easily-bored. The fact that we might hate on things that less easily bored people might like in our boredom does not disqualify our opinions, it merely points out a difference in demographics. There certainly are "critics" who consider themselves to be writing for a "mainstream" audience (once I get around to those X-MEN and philosophy things, I'm sure this portion of the conversation will be extended), but I would argue that either a) their goals are different from mine, in so far as they are evangelical about their elitism, whereas I am preaching to the already-converted or b) they are failures as critics, and are simply producing more populist swill, rather than anything of critical merit.
3) Since Neal's concern for the "everyperson" is itself an elitist action, he's actually worse than I am, since he's condescending to the people who he is apparently trying to protect. He is out amongst the sheep, shouting and smacking their asses with a stick, trying to get them to move to the next pasture, whereas I merely place a block of salt in the next field, knowing that they will flock thither upon thirst for salt (that is, I'm leading by example, he's an idiot). Though, we must also consider the notion that Neal considers himself to be an "everyman." Does this complicated my accusations? It may, but I think I would have an easier time demonstrating his elitism than he would have demonstrating his "normalcy." But, is it ever possible for an elitist to genuinely concern for the intellectually inferior?
Yes. And it's that answer of "yes" that keeps most culturology worth doing. It comes back to what I was saying at the top of this post: intellectual elitism is no different from the multitude of other elitisms and specialties that abound in all cultures, it just so happens that smart people have been vilified in the current cultural epoch. But I freely admit that my intellectual specialization has common at the cost of lack of expertise in other areas. We are all members of our cultures, even our personal identities are more the result of other people than ourselves; this is what allows us to specialize in the first place. In becoming a critic, I understand, and count on the fact that other people will become readers, creators, or whatever else. We all have our roles to fill. Mine is to be a culturologist, and apparently, Neal's role is to be an idiot.
hmmmm... odd post. not sure what this is going to spawn. but i hope it makes MORE AUDIOSHOCKER DRAMA!!!
p.s. FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah I mostly just wanted to hurl some shit at Neal. Which isn't to say that I don't think I'm right.
AudioShocker Shoutouts!
The best I can offer after reading that (very long) rant is "wow, that guy sounds like a humongous douche." I'll get that out of the way right away so you don't have to speculate on my tone here.
I read most of the articles on here and after reading the back story and other associated comments, I must say, Pete got (rightly) called out for only bitching about a) the music and b) not understanding the 'intended audience'. Your narrower audience probably does appreciate the fact that movies are held to a standard (by you), but to me it looks like you just didn't like getting (again, rightly) called out by someone not quite up to your intimate 'watchmen' knowledge level.
You two can fight it out amongst yourselves about whether parts of the book were in the movie, but I didn't see Pete slamming Nick because he asked what black freighter or whatnot was about...
If you'd like the point of view of the general public, I went to the movie with Neal. I did a perfunctory scan on wikipedia so I wouldn't be too lost (10 minutes max) and that was my entire knowledge of the backstory/book/everything.
Now granted I may not be a 'cult - urologist,' but I'm not some drooling moron either. The movie was intended for... the general public. You see, this is how they get the budget for these things... they intend to *gasp* make money!
My impression of the music in the film was that of not really noticing it. Standard period type crap in the beginning, fill in some backstory, boom right to some dude getting his ass handed to him. You provided plenty of in depth analysis if anyone cares to look that far into it. Valid points I suppose, but I'm really just trying to provide my perspective here.
I have seen better movies, I have seen worse movies. It was at least mildly engaging throughout, definitely unnecessary things in there, etc. Ultimately, I left feeling that it was pretty decent.
All in all, Pete, you could have made a very reasonable argument that you are only representing the more intimately aware audience here, but you took a rambling, long, stream of consciousness approach to calling Neal an stupid idiot, one that is trying to ostensibly join some apparent movement to dumb down America because he realizes what audience multi million dollar movies have to be marketed to.
Just sayin. Maybe take some more time out next time and write something a little less personal and a little more thought out.
Pete - I'm not sure what surprises me more: that you managed to put up a post before 2pm EST, or that you wrote about something that happened less than a week ago.
So now you're getting your idiot friends to defend you too, Neal?
Culturology can take various forms, Zac, so, while I appreciate your concern for what I presume is an otherwise favorable estimation of my style, I must say that occasionally it seems appropriate to go on a rambling tirade, if for no other reason then to stretch the bounds of one's genre.
But, seriously, for the record, I opened Culturology 023 with the following sentence: "One of the best things about Culturology’s credo to always be at least one week behind the times, at all times, is that I never have to worry about writing 'reviews.'"
I'm not sure what you're not getting about this; I in no way intended to write about the movie as a whole, or how it played with its supposed "broad" audience. It's not my fault that neither of you noticed the soundtrack one way or the other--I suppose, really, that I should have considered what the "joe-schmo" type would've have thought about it, but honestly, not that many people really even care about soundtracks (which is what can make them so pernicious).
I'm more than willing to talk about this supposed "broad" audience (and, incidentally, it seems to me that the lack of sustained success in the theatres is a good indicator that Watchmen was more disliked than liked), but, again, I don't think it has much to do with what I'm getting at; I approach the thing-itself, not the thing-as-received. It strikes me that getting people to so guilelessly believe in such an absurd demographic as the "general audience" is the easiest way for Hollywood to keep its standards so dastardly low. So, in a way, my argument really is with people that want to defend the general audience by way of keeping their reviews optimistic. To say that movies don't have to be good in order to be entertaining also ignore the fact that there are plenty of other entertainments out there which are better; there is no reason for sustaining a shitty film industry. Life will go on.
AudioShocker Shoutouts!
I have no concerns about your style. You are a douche with bad arguments, that likes using many words to say nothing and when pressed will change the subject.
Apparently everyone that doesn't like you is an idiot... and you think everyone is an idiot.
yeah i hate pete and it's pretty safe to say that i'm an idiot. TRUTH.
Awwww nooo.... I hate myself and consider myself to be an idiot!
There, the truth: succinct, heart-felt; I apologize for all the douchery that my self-loathing spawned.
AudioShocker Shoutouts!
