There's other stuff to talk about
|
|
The shortest day of the year, for example. A critique of the critics (giving them some of their own back)
Now that the election is over, Rex the Strange can get back to some serious weirdness and general non-political abuse. Now, while not quite enough to be put on the Dickhead List (Post comment [2009]: now withdrawn as there are too many complete dickheads to keep track of) Rex and I find an increasing number of reviews of this year's Christmas comedy "Christmas with the Kranks" to demonstrate vast quantities of critic's bias and stupidity. Now, neither Rex nor I have actually seen this film and, from the reviews by, in particular, Roger Ebert and Ty Burr, we probably haven't missed much.
Or have we? It seems that both of these critics have two or three really lame complaints against the film. Firstly, that it's not very funny (and they seem to blame the book author John Grisham for that - remarking that his "..expertise in legal thrillers doesn't exactly make him the go-to guy for madcap humor." Hmm. So what are they saying? He shouldn't even try? There's the critic's message: Just give up. So why are we listening to them, again? Well, rather than see the film, Rex and I read the book and we found it deliciously funny. So, is it that the film makers really fucked up or is it that these people have no sense of humor?
I guess we can forgive them for being humorless. How about their second perceived flaw with the movie: it's "message" is, as Mr Ebert says: "Go along, and follow the lead of the most obnoxious loudmouth on the block." Now now, Mr Ebert, isn't that what a critic is basically all about? Being the obnoxious (and opinionated) loudmouth? But besides that, it's a silly movie starring Tim Allen, Jamie Lee Curtis and Dan Ackroyd, for Christ's sake. What do you expect to find? The meaning of life? A lost Shakesperean sonnet? Put it in perspective, you idiots.
But most of all, what really makes Rex and my blood boil when reading these inane and petty reviews (and they both say this) is the assertion that all of this hullibaloo that we celebrate at the end of the year is about Jesus Christ. Let's get a few things straight right now:
- Historically we can't even determine, with any accuracy, which year Jesus Christ was born in, let alone the exact day.
- Christmas trees are a reflection of the Ancient Druids (tree worshippers. sound familiar) The tradition was not started by Christians.
- The celebration is a celebration of the Winter Solstace - the shortest day of the year, after
which the days start getting longer, meaning Summer is on the way back. Apart from the name, which the pagan Christians added because they're all tight-assed and anal retentive about anyone having a different belief, the holiday has nothing to do with Jesus Christ!
Wait a moment. Don't both critics argue that the film is about walking lock-step with half-baked ideas? Yet they complain that it doesn't mention Jesus. So they're walking lock-step with the half-baked Christian ideas about the Winter Solstace. Hmmm. Is it a requirement of being a critic that you must be a hypocrite, or is that simply a bonus?
The point is, it's not about whether or not "Christmas with the Kranks" is a bad movie - it may very well be. The point is that a lot of people who may ordinarily enjoy this (or any other) film may not get the opportunity to because they may feel compelled to heed the dogmatic opinions of the critics. Futhermore, the critics don't seem to acknowledge that theirs is not the only opinion or, in fact, that it is opinion at all! They seem to project an aire of absolute authority
and resolute understanding that seeks to make all other opinions cower in their wake.
So, Rex and I have no time for critics and rarely read their reviews. This one, however, caught our eye as we had read the book (which we thoroughly enjoyed - it's a good fun read, it's not a zen mindopener). And our opinion of critics has not changed and we recommend to Mr Ebert that he put his two thumbs way up his ass where they can do the least damage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
