McIntosh argues that if you're predisposed to enjoy a movie, and if that movie's perceived politics necessarily constrain your capacity to enjoy that movie, you'll want to wave away any unpleasant hypocrisy and convince yourself that the movie says something else. Fine so far. We're biased. We don't deal well with cognitive dissonance.



He's oblivious to the corollary, however. Which is to say that if we come to a movie convinced that it can't possibly speak to our politics, it stands no chance. McIntosh reads like a migraine; a fundamentalist who's switched sides; a lipless old moralist who yesterday warned you that Dungeons & Dragons is a welcome sign to Satan, and according to today's trendy moral panic tells you that movies and videogames make you a bad man. Don't argue with his jeremiads. When fundies and apologists argue with God on their side, you're always wrong. You aren't sufficiently versed in the scripture. When the same fundies turn secular, the certainty stays, the scriptures change. So now, instead, you're not versed in whichever unfalsifiable “theoretical” framework they find fashionable. McIntosh isn't about to substantiate an argument with the generally insightful and successful sort of criticism you'd get from, say, a FilmCritHulk. Not when he can call you 'filmically illiterate,' and deaf to the 'filmic dissonance' whose vibrations are audible only in his rarefied air. He's above conducting actual critique when he can condescendingly wave a Screen subscription like a rosary while shrieking 'that's sexist, that's racist.' He assumes that a “theoretical” framework simply affords one the language to speak on media, while ignoring the fact that such frameworks also prime the critic with biases and the disposition to confirm them in every work they approach. Exhume Freudian lit crit and take a long hard look at its corpse. Last century's lit profs and their poor students filled tomes documenting and diagnosing the psychosexual deviance allegedly driving every work of fiction. As Nabokov put it, such criticism is “instructive in the sense that it gives readers, including the author of the book, some information about the critic's intelligence, or honesty, or both.” The Freudian critic found evidence of suppressed incestuous lust where she would; the radical feminist sees support for patriarchal structures where he will. Sure, some works promote sexism, same as some works include characters who want to fuck their families. But adopting a theoretical framework and its stifling vocabulary with a fundamentalist's fervor guarantees that every work includes would-be mother fuckers, and the 'self perpetuating structures of toxic, patriarchal masculinities.'



Reversing the polarity of McIntosh's claptrap reveals his obliviousness to bias's ability to work both ways.



Original tweets:

I keep seeing critics intentionally twist small details to interpret media stories as “progressive” when the core values remain regressive.



It’s a mistake for critics to “left read” a piece of media to such a degree that they miss how 90% of viewers are understanding that work.



A famous example of liberal media makers completely misunderstanding the cultural impact of their work is known as The Archie Bunker Effect.



The Archie Bunker Effect refers to how makers of that show thought they were parodying bigotry while viewers saw Archie’s bigotry as heroic.



Similarly “left reading” can lead to critics extolling the radical virtues of a media story while most fans internalize status quo values.



Slivers of progressive ideas may be present but they’re often so tenuous that they can only be seen by performing intellectual backflips.



So “left reading” or misinterpreting narratives can also be a way for critics to feel smart & excuse their consumption of regressive media.



I see critics ignore blatant sexism & racism so as to twist a few threads into a progressive reading that the overall work doesn't support.



Point is fans & critics alike are often invested in finding reasons why sexist, racist or otherwise regressive media is secretly subversive.



Fans & critics desperately *want* their favorite media to be progressive and so find ways to see it that way even when it’s not in the text.



Reversed:

I keep seeing critics intentionally twist small details to interpret media stories as “regressive” when the core values remain progressive.



It’s a mistake for critics to radically read a piece of media to such a degree that they miss how 90% of viewers are understanding that work.



Similarly “radical reading” can lead to critics wagging fingers at the regressive sins of a media story while most fans internalize inoffensive values.



Slivers of regressive ideas may be present but they’re often so tenuous that they can only be seen by performing intellectual backflips.



So “radical reading” or misinterpreting narratives can also be a way for critics to feel smart & justify their contempt for media.



I see critics blatantly invent sexism & racism so as to twist a few threads into a radical reading that the overall work doesn't support.



Point is radical critics are often invested in finding reasons why media is secretly regressive.



Radical critics desperately *want* to prove that media is regressive and so find ways to see it that way even when it’s not in the text.

Reply · Report Post