Juno-bashing is so mainstream at the moment; if you want to be out of the box, start hating on the documentary King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters. Jason Scott wrote about why he hated the film, and later added a follow-up (short version, long version), after a lively discussion sprouted up in the comment section of his original post.
In summary, he dislikes the film because the plot and character conflict that make it so compelling are a deliberate fiction, presented as fact (beyond the normal editorializing that all documentaries have). I haven't seen King of Kong yet, but I wonder how Scott's criticisms (which seem apt to me) change people's opinions of what they saw.
(Jim Chanos + Michael Burry) vs. Elon Musk
-
It's been a long time since I updated. I usually update once a year, but I
missed the mark. I figured I should update before everything goes to zero....
3 years ago
2 comments:
I started reading the long version and found myself filtering the author's vitriol/bias from discussion of objectivity/film making. I ended up landing in the group of people who he classifies as:
"Too Long; Didn't Read" crowd, who I am not interested in interacting with under any circumstances.
I agree with most of the points he made that I read about. It was hilarious when he talks about something with passion and seriousness and finishes posts with the tag lines like: "Tune in tomorrow when I bitchslap you with a dictionary's worth of Me."
I liked his point about competitive sports:
"People pointing and giggling at the competition and rule controversies in the film apparently haven't watched enough competitive sports."
A lot of the activities I follow/do are subject to figurative pointing and giggling.
I personally put King of Kong in the same pile as anything by Michael Moore, "Pumping Iron", and other movies that are billed as documentaries. I went in with the expectation to see a good story told regardless of whether or not it was edited out of thin air. I wasn't disappointed. The story was definitely more conjured up than something like "Wordplay" but definitely entertaining.
I don't view any of these films as something like Planet Earth or other "credible" documentaries about topics such as faked moon landings :).
On his point: "Other people seem to think it doesn't matter if it's real or not, yet still insist on heaping abuse on the human beings appearing in the film. These people are Fuck Sausages."
I don't know if I'd call myself a "Fuck Sausage", but I was definitely a viewer who could identify as a person who didn't really care for accuracy etc. So maybe I'm just a "Fuck" or "Sausage" haha.
But in defense of those "F-sausages" I personally think it's fine to heap abuse on those human beings as long as it's within the context of the "characters" that they were portrayed as. I view it as similar to disliking/liking Daniel Plainview. I got nothing against Billy Mitchell, but just against the portrayed Billy Mitchell (if that makes any sense).
Then again it was hard to take Scott seriously when he was trying to make his points in a way that was similar to the points that he had problems with. Maybe that was the point? I haven't read any of his other stuff so I'm not sure of his M.O.
In the end, I hope that Jason Scott can make his film that is "objective" with some story to it. Regardless, I'll always plunk down some dough to watch a "documentaries" about fringe activities.
I almost lost this comment when I loaded up Jason Scott's main page for his blog!
On Fuck Sausages;
When I say heap abuse, I mean personally, like when people harass Billy Mitchell or start going through his business websites and making commentary or discussing his kids or the like. They claim it was just an entertainment but then they go find the real people anyway and start acting like the movie was accurate. Doesn't sound like you're doing that.
I made the short version for the TLDR crowd so nobody felt at all compelled they had to read that monster post (it's over 8,000 words).
I didn't know anybody took me seriously.
Post a Comment