The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

Haha, the real reason is that people can’t get a joke. One classic I saw is that pg made some comment about philosophy and some other guy went “Looks like you had a bad philosophy class” to which pg replied “I’ve had many”.

Well, that’s funny in a classic pub humour way. Except the guy didn’t get it (and neither did many others) who went on to say “Many bad philosophy classes you mean”

Like, dudes, what did you think that was? Except the whole internet is full of this. Even the slightest of puns needs a second character arriving afterwards who repeats the punch line but with some obviousness baked in.

It’s just that people aren’t literate. And I’ve got to be honest, a lot of such casual wordplay is just beyond Americans (who are generally superior to the British in every other way). They kind of need to be looking at a guy with a microphone to pick up on the joke. Probably the Germanic influence.

People just don't have any media literacy anymore it seems. Every now and then you get some indie project that doesn't treat the audience as stupid, but then the discourse around it demonstrates that the audience in fact may very well be stupid.

A recentish example I've run into is a song from Hazbin Hotel: Poison. They lyrics go on about how bad it is:

> 'Cause I know you're poison

> You're feedin' me poison

> Addicted to this feelin', I can't help but swallow

> Up your poison

The visuals are largely about the protagonist putting on a brave face under sexual assault. This song isn't putting on any kid gloves. But it's also a catchy pop song. The incongruity is the point. You're supposed to feel weird about liking this song.

But I guess a lot of people can't separate format and content so the discussion in the fandom is about how messed up it is for the authors to "glamorize assault".

1. People are indeed stupid. I don't understand why there's so much belief in human intelligence while there's so much proof of the contrary

2. Sometimes intelligent people don't want to engage with the media. Attention is a finite resource, and when I'm tired after 8 hours of work, 30 minutes of recommended daily exercise, two hours of house chores and one hour of depressive thoughts, I just don't have the energy to engage with your song about a topic that's completely irrelevant to my daily life.

3. Quite often media that's supposed to be good is actually quite shitty. Good media should have layers: surface-level literal fun catches your attention, then you discover there's some depth to it, and then you start digging and you realize it's actually very complex and interesting. The problem is that lots of media either just grab my attention for nothing, or start right from the beginning with difficult topics, and then it's "woo the audience is stupid because they won't engage with my media" no bro, I just think your media is boring.

For the less enlightened of us, what is the joke?

There doesn't have to be a joke. If you're rich enough people feel like they have to laugh at your jokes whether or not they are funny. That's the saddest thing about Elon Musk.

I could never explain to NFT fanatics that I wouldn't make NFT art because I couldn't stand producing a product for people who had no taste and would like my worst output as much as my best.

I think the concept of "functional illiteracy" is key. Almost everybody we interact with these days (aside from small children) is technically literate. That is, they can be given words on a page and read them aloud, or they can hear spoken words and write them down. This is especially true online, where this is still pretty much a basic requirement for participating in discussions.

Which it turns out is not the same thing as being given words on a page and understanding them, or turning thoughts into words which convey those thoughts to the reader. That is a substantially rarer skill, especially for anything with any complexity.

Just look at how often political campaigns use songs that sound like upbeat patriotic anthems, but are the total opposite if you actually listen to the words. Using "Born in the USA" for a "woo America!" rally is rather awkward. And of course it's not a new thing; Reagan used that song four decades ago.

The way I read it, the joke is just owning the insult in a good way.

It works here on multiple levels, because first, owning the insult is not expected, so that's already a surprise, which can work as a joke.

Then, by actually admitting to the many bad classes, it signals that the author can actually tell good from bad, implying knowledge about the matter after all, refuting the argument in the insult (that he is bad in philosophy because he had bad philosophy classes).

Third, it's a very short, snappy response, in vein of the insult, making the author look competent.

First guy says something about philosophy.

Second guy says he's had a bad philosophy class, implying it's a bad, naive, amateur, or uninformed take on the philosophical subject at hand.

First guy says he's had many, implying he's actually studied philosophy extensively, perhaps majored in it in college or obtained a degree, refuting the idea that the original take was amateur or uninformed.

But it is not funny. It is not a joke. It is just not engaging with the implied "you do not know what you talk about here" ... which is entirely valid, but not exactly a joke.

The majority of music communication is not in lyrics, but in sound and tone of voice. All good artists know that and intentionally manipulate that. This song makes you, unambiguously, feel good.

From lyrics alone, I would assume the protagonist is voluntarily part of abusive relationships. As in, they make choice to stay, despite knowing this is bad for them. I did not found sexual assault visuals, only abstract video with words and pink colors. The lyrics do not come across to me as "not putting on any kid gloves", they are gentle. They are about wanting this bad thing to happen, despite it being bad thing.

> You're supposed to feel weird about liking this song.

There are songs that make me feel weird about liking them, but not this one. This one was intentionally made to make me like it.

I do not mean it as kind of major criticism or the song ... but it is kids gloves song about abuse and feelings that make someone stay in such relationship.

We can't know if it was a joke or not, but comes across as someone trying to be funny.

Ye it is strange how few seem to listen to the lyrics. But then again it means you can get a way with listen to really radical music in plain sight.

> The majority of music communication is not in lyrics, but in sound and tone of voice.

That could maybe be argued for music which is released as music. This song isn't stand-alone, it's part of a musical. You can't take it out of its context and then complain it doesn't make sense.

> This song makes you, unambiguously, feel good.

Maybe it makes you feel good. It makes me feel conflicted.

> From lyrics alone, I would assume the protagonist is voluntarily part of abusive relationships.

I mean that's part of the point. Angel thinks they themselves are to blame for the situation they find themselves in. Which isn't true of course, but that's how it goes with abuse.

> I did not found sexual assault visuals

Well look closer then. Angels whole thing is that he puts on an act of liking all the shit happening to him. But it's pretty clearly an act in the video.

> They are about wanting this bad thing to happen, despite it being bad thing.

Part of angel DOES want some of those things to happen. There's clearly an element of glamour he likes about it. That doesn't make the relationship any less abusive.

> I do not mean it as kind of major criticism or the song ... but it is kids gloves song about abuse and feelings that make someone stay in such relationship.

I agree it's a song about why someone would stay in an abusive relationship. That doesn't mean it's glamorizing abusive relationships though. I don't really care if people dislike the song, it's parsing the song as somehow being pro-abuse where I get annoyed, because it clearly isn't. It's a realistic portrayal of how some abusive relationships work. Obviously people in them feel like they want or need to stay in them or... they wouldn't.

Finding media to be not to your liking is fine. Only half engaging with it and then calling out the authors as being in favor of sexual assault because you misread what's going on is absurd. That's the behavior I am complaining about.

I did not said the song makes no sense. It makes perfect sense. And it is in fact released as a standalone song.

> Well look closer then

As I said, I did not found sexual assault visuals. Only abstract abstract video with words and pink colors.

> There's clearly an element of glamour he likes about it.

Sure, but there is nothing about song itself that would make one feel bad about it. Or even be aware it is sexual assault what is going on. You have to bring that out from somewhere else.

> It's a realistic portrayal of how some abusive relationships work. Obviously people in them feel like they want or need to stay in them or... they wouldn't.

I do not think it is realistic portrayal of such relationship. It is glamorous portrayal. It makes you feel the harmful part feels good and is worth it. Realistic portrayal would had more pain in it, it would had mix of negative emotions in it. It would show dark side and pain, not just rational realization "this is harmful but I want it".

People in abusive relationship do not feel just the addiction and choice part. They do have fair amount of suffering, fear, feeling like they cant mixed in. They do not feel it is sweet. This song feels sweet.

If you can't see the negatives and the dark sides in that music video I dunno what to tell you. To me they are clearly and obviously there.

First I thought it was just a simple witty canned response ala Han Solo, and got confused of why we were elevating it to the level of joke that required to be understood by someone intelligent.

Then, as a non English native speaker, I thought it was a word play ("you have had a bad Phil o Sophie ass" + "I had too many" or something).

Then, reading the responses to your comment, found it was the witty canned response I originally thought all along...