This is building off of the thread created by Ninja666, whose thread was derailed by a mistake in the OP. However, I'm legitimately curious about the topic, so I thought I'd start my own.
I've known certain artists to be held in such high reverence that they seem almost untouchable. Citizen Kane is a masterpiece (it has 100% rating on rotten tomatoes). Shakespeare is one of the greatest writers of all time (if not the greatest). Stanley Kubrick's work is filled with flawless masterpieces. Apocalypse Now is a power house psychological masterpiece and anti-war film. The Godfather is heralded as a masterpiece, and one of the greatest works of cinema ever produced. For the most part, if you disagree with these types of sentiments, people immediately become judgmental. However, while I love most of the above stories and creators, I could certainly find fault with all of them.
Here's my original post:
Anyway, what do you think? Do there seem to be some works that are treated as if they are above criticism? Why? And what works do you think deserve to be looked at more critically?
This isn't a "why do you like what I don't like" thread. You can mention things you enjoy. It's simply about things that, perhaps, receive undeserved praise.
I've known certain artists to be held in such high reverence that they seem almost untouchable. Citizen Kane is a masterpiece (it has 100% rating on rotten tomatoes). Shakespeare is one of the greatest writers of all time (if not the greatest). Stanley Kubrick's work is filled with flawless masterpieces. Apocalypse Now is a power house psychological masterpiece and anti-war film. The Godfather is heralded as a masterpiece, and one of the greatest works of cinema ever produced. For the most part, if you disagree with these types of sentiments, people immediately become judgmental. However, while I love most of the above stories and creators, I could certainly find fault with all of them.
Here's my original post:
I have two creators I have issues with. After all, no one is above criticism.
The first is Stanley Kubrick. His technical skills are impressive, there's no doubt. However, he's monstrously overrated. I watched his films with bated breath the first time, waiting to see the master at work, only to be rather let down. His characters are flat, two dimensional cartoon characters, and no amount of camera magic or cinematography can fix that. No amount of visual symbolism can fix a flat story and flat characters. The protagonist from Clockwork Orange didn't grow or change at all, for better or worse. None of the characters did. Then we get to the finale, where one of the nurses was having sex in the side room for some unexplained reason, and I realized... Kubrick is an amateur. It was embarrassing. The Shining was even worse, as he had established, complex characters, and he then proceeded to dumb them down, and turn the conflicted protagonist from the novel into a generic, crazy killer. Just like every other haunted house movie.
Spoiler: Click to View
Because:
https://youtu.be/jfM3WjyCt8s?t=12m39s
2001 A Space Odyssey was undeniably his most human film, and his best, both technically and in terms of plot. That said, it still fell short of other, better films I've seen, and his core theme, about humanity transcending his environment and rising to the next level of human evolution, was frankly somewhat simple, and even ridiculous given the context.
My next complaint is Shakespeare. I love Shakespeare, and unlike Kubrick, I actually think he's a master. My issue is that he's been built as THE master. He's viewed as almost untouchable, and I think that's wrong. His pacing is decent, but not great, and his narratives are hit and miss for me. He's a really good writer, but he's certainly not the best.
The first is Stanley Kubrick. His technical skills are impressive, there's no doubt. However, he's monstrously overrated. I watched his films with bated breath the first time, waiting to see the master at work, only to be rather let down. His characters are flat, two dimensional cartoon characters, and no amount of camera magic or cinematography can fix that. No amount of visual symbolism can fix a flat story and flat characters. The protagonist from Clockwork Orange didn't grow or change at all, for better or worse. None of the characters did. Then we get to the finale, where one of the nurses was having sex in the side room for some unexplained reason, and I realized... Kubrick is an amateur. It was embarrassing. The Shining was even worse, as he had established, complex characters, and he then proceeded to dumb them down, and turn the conflicted protagonist from the novel into a generic, crazy killer. Just like every other haunted house movie.
Spoiler: Click to View
Because:
https://youtu.be/jfM3WjyCt8s?t=12m39s
2001 A Space Odyssey was undeniably his most human film, and his best, both technically and in terms of plot. That said, it still fell short of other, better films I've seen, and his core theme, about humanity transcending his environment and rising to the next level of human evolution, was frankly somewhat simple, and even ridiculous given the context.
My next complaint is Shakespeare. I love Shakespeare, and unlike Kubrick, I actually think he's a master. My issue is that he's been built as THE master. He's viewed as almost untouchable, and I think that's wrong. His pacing is decent, but not great, and his narratives are hit and miss for me. He's a really good writer, but he's certainly not the best.
Anyway, what do you think? Do there seem to be some works that are treated as if they are above criticism? Why? And what works do you think deserve to be looked at more critically?
This isn't a "why do you like what I don't like" thread. You can mention things you enjoy. It's simply about things that, perhaps, receive undeserved praise.
