A Test Case of the Genetic Fallacy

dmann-62849

AN ARGUMENT

More and more over the last few years professional film critics, who rely on favours from major entertainment companies such as Disney and Sony (i.e. are shills), review films based not on how exciting their stories are, how skilful the acting is, or how brilliant their cinematography is, but on their political messages. The vast majority of such critics are supporters of the ruling class ideology of the last decade, authoritarian identity politics.

The great majority of the audience cares about the quality of films they invest their time and money to watch, not their political messages.

This leads to a split in paradigms: critics care about messages and being loyal to their corporate masters, audiences about entertainment. This leads critics and allied pundits to engage in the genetic fallacy - they look more and more at who is making the film or TV show, and less and less at the film or show itself. Bad people make bad films, and vice versa.

Thus we get a fragmented critical reality. The critics love woke entertainment like recent seasons of STAR TREK DISCOVERY or DOCTOR WHO, while fans abhor these sloppily written shows with plot holes that a Constitution-class starship could warp through. Any half-intelligent Trekkie or Whovian knows these are narrative low points in the histories of these venerable franchises, for logical and canonical reasons alone, leaving aside the likeability of their characters.

For instance, both Screen Rant and Grunge rate DISCOVERY above both STAR TREK VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE, despite the former's poor writing, constant violations of canon, and unlikeable main character Michael Burnham. If all you do is to watch the pilot of ENTERPRISE "Broken Bow", and compare it fairly to the pilot of DISCOVERY, you'll see how absurd this is.

To make things worse, both of the earlier Trek shows had diverse crews, a tradition that goes back to the original series.

A sure mark of woke entertainment is when the only straight white male characters in the narrative are villains, or obsequious "allies". This is especially strange when the majority of the fan bases of key scif-fi, horror and comics franchises are white and male (and probably straight), traditionally egalitarian liberals who embraced the Vulcan logic of "infinite diversity in infinite combinations", or the Doctor's pacifist solutions to the galaxy's many conflicts.

On the other hand, well-made films and shows with heterodox or conservative messages such as JOKER are adored by fans, while the likes of Vox, CNN, and The Washington Post try to create a moral panic about their mere existence. Sometimes it's even enough for a film or show to merely lack "diversity" for it to be condemned by corporatist critics. The first wave of critics on Rotten Tomatoes gave JOKER a zero score, though they eventually came around, with its current score in the sixties.

A test case of the genetic fallacy is RUN HIDE FIGHT, produced by Ben Shapiro's company The Daily Wire. I haven't seen it yet and thus have no opinion about it - though I enjoyed most of Thomas Jane's past performances, and the trailer looks exciting. But it has a zero chance of being evaluated fairly by professional critics. It's pointless to read their reviews, since they are no more than signals of politically loyalty by NPC critics to the film companies that provide them with access to screeners, premieres and other perks. They are motivated either by cultist commitments, or by fears of being unemployed or cancelled.

This is a sorry state of affairs for long-time film and TV fans, since the culture wars have invaded entertainment spaces so much of late that using critical notices to decide whether or not to watch something is pointless. Critics have turned themselves into corporate cheerleaders, thus obviating their original role - telling the audience whether something is worth watching.

score 7/10

dmann-62849 8 January 2021

Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw6455314/