I take no pleasure in reporting that Raoul Peck’s globetrotting, centuries-spanning associational documentary is one of the worst “serious” films made in recent years. Shockingly, and with increasing intensity, nearly each aesthetic decision Peck makes has the opposite of its intended effect. Part of the four hours’ failure comes from wanting to be a significant work, all at once, of film theory, film history, postcolonial theory, intellectual history, media history, media theory, and rhetorical analysis. It falters with all these…
When I interviewed John Waters in 2016, he said "I want to be an insider now that everyone wants to be an outsider." With the latter point, he might as well have been describing the tone of Shiva Baby, a movie so certain of its edgy, outsider status that we can rather easily dismiss it as an attempt to place itself on the inside. That's what Waters was getting at: self-describing as quirky, weird, unconventional, etc. has become a navigable…
Please allow the candor of my passions a forum without preemptive judgment.
The “post-racial mystique”, as Catherine Squires calls it, need not be found in cases where racial recognition unexpectedly springs to the surface. On the contrary, the very concept of being “post-racial” means that race does not factor into discussions regarding politics or the polity, because the urgency of those conversations have been lessened or even permanently quelled. Accordingly, depictions of history, especially those guided by nostalgia and longing…
Tenure-track NYU Professors make like $100,000 a year. Econ professors, probably more. The film treats Dr. Chu’s profession like she’s a manager at P.F. Chang’s. With the New York Times publishing articles like “Is $200,000 the New $100,000?” (almost a decade ago at this point), we have some serious work to do untangling these noxious delusions (“fantasy” seems too generous) of obscene wealth pursual, including ones like these that come from (supposedly) socially progressive launching pads.