criterionforum.org

I could not be happier about this, one of my most beloved books when I was a child, A Wrinkle in Time, is getting a film adaptation directed by Ava DuVernay, whose visual sensibility was the best thing about Selma

The Narrator Returns wrote:A Wrinkle in Time

Looks like bdsweeney didn't have to wait long for another mournful cover version trailer.

The Narrator Returns wrote:A Wrinkle in Time

I had hoped beyond hope that the trend of moody pop-song covers in teasers had died off, and yet here we are.

This Trailer wrote:Visionary Director Ava DuVernay

[citation needed]

I want to meet the person who edited that trailer. Just grab a slice of pizza together, ask them why the fuck they did that, etc

This looks more like a remake of the awful Disney TV movie than an adaptation of the book. Again they cast movie stars as the three Mrs Ws and they go for some garish version of glam rather than the three eccentric old women they are in the novel.

whose visual sensibility was the best thing about Selma

what visual sensibility? Selma seemed entirely pedestrian to me in its staging/camerawork/editing/etc. and her documentary was a downright mess.

If you say so. I thought the scenes in the White House and the church bombing scene were visually arresting, and I haven’t seen the doc. Not sure what you’re expecting from a documentary from a visual perspective that it didn’t deliver.

I also thought her handling of the murder of the pair about to leave was well done. I don't have much interest in this (Oprah as RuPaul is not what I want at the moment), but at worst her previous work is generically pleasant. I also recommend her lesbian film she made for Miu Miu.

I appreciated how Selma placed MLK in the context of a movement made up of many activists from different walks of life—a necessary corrective to the Great Man version that's so easily co-opted by people across the political spectrum. But the key scenes felt like hieratic tableaux of Great Moments, aerated self-consciously with a few "found" gestures in unconvincing ways. Otherwise I think "generically pleasant" is about what I'd say.

In re. The 13th: a documentary is just as much a work of visual art as a fiction film, albeit usually in a different way. Much of DuVernany's doc was taken up with meme-style drop quotes in big bold letters floating across or bursting upon the screen, alternating with talking heads. It was like a tweetstorm brought to life, and not in a good way.

I also thought it was structurally a mess, doubling back around to certain points to no apparent purpose and skimming over other, even more important ones. There was lots of interesting stuff in it, as you would expect based on the topic and interview subjects. But the topic lent itself to telling a really compelling, even revelatory historical narrative, and I think she botched it. It made me appreciate what a feat of organization and storytelling a good documentary is.

There is an awkward hush among "Film Twitter" as one gets the sense that this movie isn't very good, but no one wants to take up the mantle of saying so. The social media embargo has lifted, the actual written review embargo is up March 7th, will be interesting to see how this goes, seems to be the first big challenge for film criticism where a "woke" blockbuster didn't turn out as hoped, and everyone has to decide whether to tiptoe around it.

DuVernay has been weirdly defensive about it to totally neutral questions about it from some reporters, so it's not particularly surprising. Still don't think very many have actually seen it, though, and I don't think the takeaway is it's terrible, just a misstep.

Shit happens. Good filmmakers make bad movies all the time. But if there's a 95% RottenTomatoes rating at the end of this rainbow, it's going to be apparent really quickly that something's more rotten than I thought in film criticism at large.

And it's a shame this is a situation that's going to be immediately pounced on by those sorts of folks who will take it as validation that critics are out to get, say, Zach Snyder's horrible oeuvre as if those films don't stink on ice in a vacuum.

Unless it is a good movie (as much as I doubt it from the awful drag show ads that I've seen).

mfunk9786 wrote:There is an awkward hush among "Film Twitter" as one gets the sense that this movie isn't very good, but no one wants to take up the mantle of saying so.

This didn't stop anyone with the new Clint Eastwood film.

There's also the unfortunate thing that's going to happen where some people actually connect with it/enjoy it and are just outright accused of pretending to like it, which sucks. I'm hoping this has a positive effect on the sort of neoliberal hive mind that's going on in pop culture right now but I doubt it.

Also, regardless of how it turns out, so wonderful she used her cachet to turn down Black Panther and make something that legitimately not have been made if she didn't. The IP was just gathering dust, and she made what seems to be a real passion project.

Also, fake/inflated RT scores aren't a thing. If it's just good, it'll get a 70% or something. Or it could get a 90! If everyone likes it but doesn't love it, that's just how the numbers work out.

They become a thing if a slew of critics give three stars to a film they didn’t like to avoid backlash

Film Twitter is absolute hell though and I would recommend staying within the bubble you cultivate because goodness me can it be bad. Abusive even. If Ava has delivered a bloated mess of a film they'll be sure to tell her that. Don't think for two seconds that people won't be honest about it. You can damn people with faint praise too.

swo17 wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote:There is an awkward hush among "Film Twitter" as one gets the sense that this movie isn't very good, but no one wants to take up the mantle of saying so.

This didn't stop anyone with the new Clint Eastwood film.

Except A.O. Scott

I do understand the completely rational concept that women and people of color receive more abuse online and have a significantly harder time making films. But you don't get a pass for making a bad film because of it. A dumpster fire is a dumpster fire.

To judge from the trailer, it looks like this might have fallen into the same generic ya quest movie trap that's plagued adaptations recently- but in a world in which Black Panther makes 600 billion dollars, I don't think even a significant flop here would prove anything about black filmmakers or black led films.

Again, the reaction hasn't really been "it's terrible!" Just... not very positive? A reaction similar to Tomorrowland, probably - just a bummer this filmmaker given these resources didn't turn out something amazing.

DuVernay has benefited critically from making movies about Important Subjects—which, if the results aren't genuinely awful or patronizing, goes a long way with many folks—but the films themselves strike me as mediocre, as I wrote about above. I feel like perhaps with this particular subject there's nowhere to hide.