I'm happy Crazy Rich Asians is doing so well at the box office but like it...I didn't...it wasn't my jam, personally
there were a lotta Male Writing Rom-Com tells in it, most notably the EXTREMELY PERFECT DUDE who was also completely trash and lied to her for their whole relationship but never had to deal with that fact at all and that bugged me :-/
I get that the tension and comedy of rom-coms is often premised on a lie, and I never care much for that aspect personally, b/c in real life a lie is a shoddy foundation to base a relationship on, but ok it's movies, relax, yeah yeah...
but usually the lie is A) a small one, and B) like, has consequences and is addressed and sort of paid for on some level in the economy of the story — creates the tension and then is resolved, for better or worse, yeah?
In CRA #SPOILERALERT: there's an initial lie which was really a huge 1 that spanned the entire relationship and included various levels of deceit, not just some lie by omission or white lie: a lie about something that matters
and they kinda blow past the fact that he lied and lied and lied by showing us glamorous travel brochure shots of Singapore. And then halfway thru the movie a whole other conflict takes over that feels pretty shoved in there and the lie is never dealt with at all
so the female protag ends up having to constantly do emotional and physical labor: forgiveness, dealing dude's with abusive friends and family hazing and threatening her, more forgiveness, outwitting said family, and magically this makes her super attractive to him
which is really weird because he has to do all of basically nothing, really, when he's the one that a) lied and lied and lied and b) didn't prepare her for his fucked up family, and c) just stands there being charming, which he is.
so there's no accountability or honesty or work that the dude really has to do, it's all on the woman, and that irked me. Granted, she's the protagonist so it's her journey, I get that but there are still ways for him to deal with his shit, which he didn't.
yeah that didn't work for me at all either. Creepiness as comic relief is a non-starter.
yoiks
i laughed! Sometimes! But the funny parts weren't funny enough Awkwafina randomly slipping into her AAVE schtick just felt super out of place and made no sense at all. She was better when she stayed in character? Like? Way better? The character in the movie? Not her character?
same. I was actively divested from them as a couple from pretty early on.
and like were we never gonna talk about ol girl getting a GUTTED FISH PUT IN HER BED BY HIS FRIENDS WITH A THREAT SCRAWLED IN ITS BLOOD?!?! He was like oh dear, hopefully nothing else happened? And she was like *sigh* I love you so play despacito MOVING ON
hahah very much same. The Mother Daughter stuff really got me too, in a good way and I enjoyed a bunch of the shenanigans
another important point here:
To be clear: I am *not* saying don't go see the movie. There's a lot of fun stuff and this is a very personal critique of it. I'm glad I saw it. And a lot of people love it!
There's a whole really complicated conversation about critique to be had, especially in the context of art from communities that have been erased, and I haven't fully figured out how to clearly say what I feel about it and I'm not sure I have the range tbh
The gladiator effect is so real — whiteness pitting POC artists against each other. We saw it today with the Guardian labeling Boots's critique about Spike an attack, right? And that's always on my mind. Always.
At the same time: I don't think that gets to dictate how we interact/exist/process each others' art in public spheres. To be silent because we'll be misunderstood by whiteness is to still let whiteness determine the rules and set the playing field.
I also think attacking is a real thing that we've seen happen on here, that's not critique at all but is sometimes disguised as critique. And that's not cool. But that also doesn't invalidate ALL critique.
critique ≠ beef
sometimes the move *is* to take a person aside & have a convo with them when something they made has issues. I've done that. And sometimes I haven't said anything at all. And sometimes I've said things in public. I don't know which is the right thing when, there's no easy answer
I just know that the ability to be honest about art, to get into the nuances of what works and what doesn't, etc, is part of what makes us better artists individually and a better community as a whole.
Doesn't mean we do it all the time. It's not EVERYTHING. And when it becomes everything, things feel unbalanced. But it's not nothing. It's important. And critique is one foundation of the movement to diversify the bookshelf. This started, in part, with criticism.
this is the shit of it. How can we be supportive and be honest? I think that balance is possible. And everyone has a different balance to find. It's very personal.
A related thing (and sorry to take over the TL with this — it's been on my mind a while): I don't believe in perfection. I don't like the stress we put on it. There is no perfect book, movie. And if there was that definition would be different in 6 months.
that doesn't mean everything is therefore a wash, and so there's no point in calling shit out. It just means there are layers to shit. Sometimes we hold each other to much higher standards than we do white cultural output.
I wonder this every passing moment tbh
anyway: there are many different takes on this; I've had many convos about it this year, and I respect and agree with a lot about the differing ones from mine. It's very personal and it's often very painful and complicated.
another part of it for me is that I think of critique as generally not just something between the critic and the artist, but something that can help other people sort out their feelings about some art.
I know first hand how powerful it can be to realize I wasn't alone in feeling like something wasn't right, was downright fucked up, but not knowing how to say it or if it was even ok to feel that way. And then someone says it and you're like YES! THAT! OMG!
Especially when it's said in a way that doesn't simplify or judge — doesn't necessarily throw away the whole thing because of one broken part. I know I've needed permission to see things how I know them to be, and getting it was very freeing
That's definitely one strategy I see a lot and totally understand
I think a lot about high school newspapers that can't say when a school play was absolute shit, or the state media in Cuba, which can't really critique the state produced film industry or theater world. And that's honestly devastating to an artistic community. You can't grow.
and I think about the tradition in hip hop of yes, petty beef, but also like righteously letting another rapper know when they really didn't bring it. Or the way various writers have lovingly come at each other throughout time. And sometimes not lovingly, ok definitely.
to come back to this, full circle: I think the world/community/art in general is better for Boots being able to clearly say what didn't work for him about BK, even if it got predictably played as petty beef after the fact.
Shank Shew for Shmoming to my Shmed Shmalk
Lol this bot
Right! And that's what I mean by critique is not beef. Beef imho is best handled directly and privately. Which is probably what this thread goes on to say.
Lol yep
Bahahahaha true and fair enough
This and this whole thread
Another danger of lack of critique in a larger sense, or over protectiveness, is that that's exactly what brought us the fancon fiasco. And we know this because once it tipped, all that mess came out. And it was shit people hadnt known how to deal with publicly: Not beef.
😭😭😭😭😭😭😭took me a whole ass 50000 tweet thread to try to get at what he says in like 74 characters lmfao
Aaaaaanyway
