Dare to be Critical 

One of the few fun things to emerge out of the pandemic has been a virtual film discussion series sponsored by my local non-profit movie theater. Each month a new movie is chosen, and a discussion led by Hannah Jack, who writes those pithy movie introductions for the Turner Classic Movie hosts. The movies have been an array of Hollywood fare, with everything from westerns, to dramas to screwball comedies.   

A recurring theme has emerged within these discussions. Not surprisingly, many of the old Hollywood films are misogynistic and/or racist by today’s standards. These movies arguably reflect the prevailing attitudes at the time they were made, but would not pass muster in today’s cultural climate. The question becomes how do you approach those concerns in viewing these movies today. 

Often the discussion will split between those that express their discomfort with the tropes they are seeing, impacting their enjoyment of the film. Others argue that you have to view the movie through the lens of the era in which it was made, and not be concerned with how the attitudes expressed look today. They purport to possess the ability to transport themselves back in time, and seem not to understand why others cannot do the same.      

This all came to a head with, believe it or not, Pillow Talk, starring Doris Day (who does nothing for me) and Rock Hudson (a pretty face, if ever there was one). This is a typical 1950’s Hollywood rom-com, with Rock adopting a persona so that he can lure an unsuspecting Doris into his bed. Of course, it all blows up in his face, and he realizes that he is helplessly smitten by Doris’ charms. Along the way there is an attempted date rape, a planned weekend abduction and other assorted chicanery. 

In the ensuing discussion, a number of people said that they were turned off by the unabashedly misogynistic nature of the film (including me). Some, who consider Pillow Talk one of their favorites (heaven knows why), were seemingly morally offended by those comments. They saw the misogyny as all in good fun, and seemed to consider those turned off by the nature of the antics portrayed hopeless prudes.   

This debate is nothing new. The question of how we view historical figures, especially American historical figures, comes up all the time. However, unless your goal is to enshrine those figures, you can note their strengths and accomplishments, while at the same time condemning their troublesome blind spots. To use just one example, you can laud Jefferson for his contributions to the rhetoric of liberty, while at the same time castigating his hypocrisy, which saw that rhetoric as applying to white males only.   

Entertainment, or art, is something different. A film, a book, or a sculpture, stands on its own, outside of its maker. We absorb what it has to say within the confines of its presentation. We can talk about the artist separately, but it is the piece itself that we are reacting to.  

That reaction is governed by who we are at that moment. Our beliefs, our values and our tastes. It is impossible, at least for me, to shut those values off, and try to absorb whatever I am viewing as if they do not exist. Not only can’t I do that, I do not want to.  

Much of the reluctance to apply personal standards of taste comes from our disdain for critics. A critic is rarely appreciated. Someone has gone to a lot of trouble to create something, and here comes someone else intent on doing nothing but ripping it down. Plus, critics have an annoying tendency to disparage in such harsh, condescending terms that the criticism often seems designed more show of the critic’s wit than it does to assess the piece being deprecated. 

Social media has further deflated our respect for critical judgement. Appraisers on social media seem to care less about justifying their opinion, instead trying to be as nasty they can be. Any attempt to question the morality of a film or show is just going to get you a knee-jerk accusation of political correctness, and a ton of abuse.    

And yet, it is a dangerous thing to shut down one’s values in assessing art, or entertainment. A critical eye is essential to appreciating and understanding what is being presented. It also enhances the experience. We are not just taking something in at a surface level, but truly engaging with it. If we aren’t doing that, we are wasting our time.  

The only way to engage with something is to use what we have. We are not engaging if we try and approach it with eyes that are not our own. We cannot place ourselves in another’s shoes, or truly assess their intent. In trying to do so we are simply ceding betraying everything we are. We all need to be critics.  

That doesn’t mean that we should not try and understand the motivation behind a creation. In fact, that’s part of the critical process. But understanding it, and accepting it as legitimate, are two different things. We can understand that a filmmaker in 1958 might find that it acceptable to use a full, frontal, sexual assault for comic relief, but that doesn’t mean that we have to accept it, and just laugh along. 

Critical judgement is the essence of appreciation. Burying that judgment, or trying to put it aside, is just a means of vegetation. And that judgment must include an assessment of the attitudes being expressed. That’s true whether what your viewing is 2, 10 or 50 years old. So, commence the commentary!!