←back to thread

231 points frogulis | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dfxm12 ◴[] No.44571175[source]
I think some films, especially movies that aspire to win academy awards, are meant to be played to the world wide lowest common denominator. Movies are made for USA and Chinese audiences first, but they are also made to be easily sold in Europe.

This isn't to say that Hollywood thinks everyone is dumb, but they recognize that all these different people who grew up in different places aren't going to understand the same idioms, or may miss subtle, cultural clues. The director has to spell things out. This explains a lot of what the author coins New Literalism.

replies(3): >>44571489 #>>44573230 #>>44573339 #
boogieknite ◴[] No.44573339[source]
Anora, Oppenheimer, and Everything Everywhere All at Once are not lowest common denominator movies. the academy has many issues but i dont think its catering to mass appeal and dumbing down

Serpell's interpretation of Anora is dismissive and shallow. the point is Disney infects the American mind and Baker's made that point across half his movies and in some cases incredibly blatantly. its implied and Serpell categorizing it under New Literalism goes to show they're probably right in many cases, but also use it as a convenient excuse to avoid analysis

replies(2): >>44577273 #>>44585723 #
thegrim33 ◴[] No.44577273[source]
What was complicated at all about Oppenheimer?

Would a "common denominator" person really watch that movie and afterwards be confused about anything that happened? What aspect would they remotely be confused about? What aspect would be "deep" to them?

From what I saw, it was nothing but the most basic character drama combined with some "suspenseful" races against time thrown in here and there. For the second half it turns into just one of those movies where the political/social message is effectively just beaten into your face, there's no subtlety at all.

They took no risk that the viewer wouldn't get their message, they make it plainly obvious. In my mind it's a perfect example of "the new literalism". It's almost up there with stuff like Don't Look Up, Snowpiercer, The Big Short, Parasite, etc. These movies mostly solely exist as a conduit through which a political/social message can be force fed to you, in the form of a movie, rather than existing as an actual movie.

replies(1): >>44579202 #
1. boogieknite ◴[] No.44579202[source]
i CERTAINLY agree that theres tons of new literalism in Oppenheimer. i was mentioning that Oppenheimer is not catering to the lowest common denominator in order to get an Oscar. Oscars trade on belabored basic character drama and many of the things you listed. mostly depends on directors who the academy think are "deserving" at the moment

Oppy did incredibly well because of it's memed Barbenheimer marketing wave. i dont think the 3 hour great man movie was lowest common denominator movie. sure, you and i might think it was basic and laughed when Einstein showed up, but my bar for lowest common denominator is a Happy Madison production